Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The 9-11 Dancing Middle Easterners and their vans
Comments
-
To clarify, I believe the report. And I also agree with Diogenes when he suggests that the "mural" was something innocuous that was misinterpreted in the panic of the day.
I explained earlier that there was no indication of panic ... It suits your theory to dismiss the Mural but is not a valid one
So you change your original stance on the report? ...However you seem to be conveniently leaving out the part where the report says that the van did not explode.... but okay...
Where did i conveniently leave out that part ?? ...
It is in the MTI report i posted ... I left it in your quote when replying
So please point out where i left it out conveniently so i can correct that0 -
There is 3 km between the locations
And Barclay ....there was also a command post set up at pier 92 I think
That's why the timeline is important
Because they had a headquarter on Barclay street as well, I missed the one on 6th in the report (still 3km away from 6th and king) Care to explain that ?
The whole point with the command centre's is that neither one was close to 6th and king
Nope there is quite a large distance between the command post in the report and 6th and king .. that leaves the room for a 2 (maybe more) Van scenario
How do you Explain 1 Van being at possibly two places ?
In fact 6th and King is quite close to Barclay, perhaps that's what they were referring to?
Is the only possible explanation for this discrepancy to invent and entirely new van from thin air?No ...possibly, .. and probably the one on 6th and king ??
Is that correct?I explained earlier that there was no indication of panic ... It suits your theory to dismiss the Mural but is not a valid one
The report said that it was an innocent delivery van.
Or was this van painted differently to the van that you think exploded?So you change your original stance on the report? ...Where did i conveniently leave out that part ?? ...
It is in the MTI report i posted ... I left it in your quote when replying
So please point out where i left it out conveniently so i can correct that0 -
Im sorry you appear to be jumping up and down excitedly going OMG ITS A OFFICIAL REPORT!
It's by the College of Business of San Jose State University? Why should I take everything in it as gospel truth?0 -
For the most part. I believe the comments about van "painted with the plane crashing into the WTC could easily be a mistake and it was a van with a mural ofplane that was flying over the NY skyline, and in the confusion and excitement it was misconstrued as a plane flying into the WTC.
It's a much more plausible explanation.
Proportion of all known reports that say mural was of a plane crashing into New York: 100%
Proportion of all known reports that say mural was a "plane that was flying over the NY skyline": 0%
You've somehow convinced yourself that the 0% is "much more plausible".
Why???????
Hardly skepticism is it?
0 -
So then the media not reporting, say, the gaming convention I recently attended is the result of me obtaining a media blackout?
Or is it the fact that the media doesn't report non-stories?
For example a false alarm bomb scare?
Nevertheless, I've already had a needlessly long, drawn out conversation about that which is self-evident i.e. that running from the Police is an indication of wrongdoing. We really shouldn't need the US Supreme Court to tell us, as they did that it is. It's common sense territory as is the current object of our conversation. Again all it takes is common sense to realise that a van with people from the "Middle East" that has a mural painted on it of a plane diving into the WTC is stopped by the NYPD in New York on the day of 9-11, it's passengers make a run for it, are caught, then arrested, the area is evacuated, the bomb squad, medics and the entire NY City Taskforce are summoned to the scene is newsworthy.
Even all this is accepting (which I don't) that the NYPD Police officer that seen their van explode suddenly became temporarily insane and the van didn't explode.0 -
Incidentally, this is Robert Sandford, the guy who made the Police Radio recording with a little background information.
Robert (above), on his side of the Golden Gate Bridge. Below is the WB6NYC Shack.
http://www.fenichel.com/RobtShack.jpg
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]Robert Sanford - WB6NYC
Robert Sanford went about his life as he usually does. 11th September started off early for Robert - about 6.00 am, but who cares...... Robert is an Amateur radio enthusiast (as I am) and when he learned about the events unfolding in New York Robert was on the case immediately.
During the next few hours Robert recorded some of the most amazing audio that he had ever had to listen to - and probably some of the saddest content. Events on 11th September are known to most people on Earth, but when you actually listen to the audio recordings that Robert captured it WILL change your view of the whole thing known as Incident 0727.
Here's some info about Robert in his own words:
After some 20 years in New York City I have decided to "get the hell out of Dodge" and make the nice quiet town of Sausalito my new "home town". I was the Emergency Coordinator for ARES, the Radio Officer for RACES and the SKYWARN Coordinator for New York City.
[/FONT][/FONT]http://www.incident0727.com/robert_sanford.htm0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Firstly, you don't seem to know what a "false bomb scare" is. It is a bomb threat/warning, the "false" making it an empty threat warning.
Bomb scares can come from authorities misinterpreting reports and innocuous things without the need for someone to make a threat. Including shutting down roads and calling in emergency services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scareBrown Bomber wrote: »Nevertheless, I've already had a needlessly long, drawn out conversation about that which is self-evident i.e. that running from the Police is an indication of wrongdoing. We really shouldn't need the US Supreme Court to tell us, as they did that it is. It's common sense territory as is the current object of our conversation.
Running does not make people guilty of anything other than running from the police. This would not even guarantee a charge of resisting arrest.
Furthermore we can't even conclude that they did run in the first place.
Other possibilities remain such as the police officer misspeaking, or misinterpreting what they had done.Brown Bomber wrote: »Again all it takes is common sense to realise that a van with people from the "Middle East" that has a mural painted on it of a plane diving into the WTC is stopped by the NYPD in New York on the day of 9-11, it's passengers make a run for it, are caught, then arrested, the area is evacuated, the bomb squad, medics and the entire NY City Taskforce are summoned to the scene is newsworthy.
And which of this is inconsistent with a false bomb scare?Brown Bomber wrote: »Even all this is accepting (which I don't) that the NYPD Police officer that seen their van explode suddenly became temporarily insane and the van didn't explode.
There's no other evidence of any sort to support that there was an explosion at all.
So before I actually discuss the recording (since it's clear you are incapable of honestly answering the question I asked.), have you any other evidence to support the idea that a van exploded beyond that recording?0 -
More pointless pedantry.Bomb scares can come from authorities misinterpreting reports and innocuous things without the need for someone to make a threat. Including shutting down roads and calling in emergency services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scareIt is common sense stuff, that you are twisting and misrepresenting to suit your ends.Running does not make people guilty of anything other than running from the police. This would not even guarantee a charge of resisting arrest.RESISTING ARREST
A Misdemeanor
PENAL LAW 205.30
(Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1980)
Under our law, a person is guilty of Resisting Arrest when he
or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer
[or peace officer] from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or
herself [or another person].
http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/2-PenalLaw/205/205-30.pdfFurthermore we can't even conclude that they did run in the first place.Other possibilities remain such as the police officer misspeaking, or misinterpreting what they had done.
Possibility A:The Police Officer said the passengers fled when what he meant to say was they waited patiently in their car???? That's absurd.
Possibility B: The Police Officer thought he saw the passengers take flight but it turns out they were actually waiting patiently in their van???? Equally absurd.Where are you getting the idea that the area was evacuated?And we're not accepting that's what the officer reported.
There's no other evidence of any sort to support that there was an explosion at all.
If you were listening to a game on the radio would you not accept the final score of the game until fans who'd been at the game rang into BBC Radio?So before I actually discuss the recording (since it's clear you are incapable of honestly answering the question I asked.), have you any other evidence to support the idea that a van exploded beyond that recording?
======================================================
I said I'd get back to the "Boston Bomb scare", now why did that get a ton of coverage, all media outlets seemed to have reported heavily on it and this "bomb scare" got absolutely nothing, ever?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »More alliteration?
I'll come back to this in a minute.
Now you are being completely unfair. I don't have any "ends" so let's stick to the topic.
You make no sense. Running away from Police is an obvious case of resisting arrest and is a crime in NY.
I said that running doesn't guarantee a charge of resisting arrest.
It doesn't.Brown Bomber wrote: »Yes we can. The Police Officer on the scene has said so. Minneta doesn't mention it at all and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest otherwise.Brown Bomber wrote: »This is absolutely ridiculous.
Possibility A:The Police Officer said the passengers fled when what he meant to say was they waited patiently in their car???? That's absurd.
Possibility B: The Police Officer thought he saw the passengers take flight but it turns out they were actually waiting patiently in their van???? Equally absurd.
One of many many possibilities is that the pair of suspects left the van and turned and moved away form the police officer, failing to notice or hear him, which he then misinterpreted as an attempt to flee.
Or perhaps the cop's car was parked a good bit away and when they left the van and he had to run after them to get them to stop?
But then this is all pretty irrelevant as them running does not prove their guilt.Brown Bomber wrote: »Minetta says so.Brown Bomber wrote: »What other evidence is neccessary? You have a live, on the scene commentary by professionals.Brown Bomber wrote: »No, but the Police radio transmission is significant and stands by itself.have you any evidence that the van didn't explode and was returned to it's owners?
So just to be sure, the only actual source you have that the van exploded was the record featured in the earlier video.
You have nothing else to confirm that happened?Brown Bomber wrote: »I said I'd get back to the "Boston Bomb scare", now why did that get a ton of coverage, all media outlets seemed to have reported heavily on it and this "bomb scare" got absolutely nothing, ever?
And I do like how you totally avoided the point I made with that link.0 -
Advertisement
-
So it's impossible that they, when writing the report though that because both the van and the command centre were both on 6th, they were closer they they actually were?
In fact 6th and King is quite close to Barclay, perhaps that's what they were referring to?
When writing a report the time of guessing is over .. All the things you mentioned above are easy verifiable ... from the command center on 6th to 6th and king is 3km ... that is NOT nearby, and Barclay is even further away from 6th and king ... according to my searchIs the only possible explanation for this discrepancy to invent and entirely new van from thin air?
No but it is thought (food) for discussionSo you believe that the one van in the report (ie. "near the command centre") did not explode, but that there was another on 6th and King that did explode?
Is that correct?
As said above that could well be ... The report leaves plenty room for discussion ...But the Video BB posted does the sameSo there's not possible way that what was on the van could have been misinterpreted? I'm not dismissing it, I'm offering a sane explanation for it, in accordance to the report you posted.
The report said that it was an innocent delivery van.
Or was this van painted differently to the van that you think exploded?
I dont know KM, but I'm not ruling anything out .... the whole panic excuse is pretty much non valid i think, .... I also find it strange that i can't find no pictures of a Van with such a painting driving around there that day ...
Did they let the guys go after they searched the Van @ the command center loading up with explosives after and driving to 6th and king?? Who knows... again Timeline is importantBecause if you are choosing to believe the report, then you cannot use it to support the theory that a van exploded because it claims otherwise.
That's my whole problem .. i tend to believe both0 -
When writing a report the time of guessing is over .. All the things you mentioned above are easy verifiable ... from the command center on 6th to 6th and king is 3km ... that is NOT nearby, and Barclay is even further away from 6th and king ... according to my search
Or that they considered 3km, or less between King and Barclay, to be "close"?No but it is thought (food) for discussionAs said above that could well be ... The report leaves plenty room for discussion ...But the Video BB posted does the same
The report very much does not support what's in the video or what BB is claiming.I dont know KM, but I'm not ruling anything out .... the whole panic excuse is pretty much non valid i think,
I've already posted an example of the police mistaking something clearly innocuous for a bomb and taking it seriously enough to call out the bomb squad, shut down streets and make arrests. And this is without the extra stress and panic of actual terrorist attacks occurring.
So people mistaking something for a mural during this time to confusion, panic and stress is impossible?.... I also find it strange that i can't find no pictures of a Van with such a painting driving around there that day ...
Yet there's not a single photo.
Not a single report beyond the transmission that BB posted.
Not one civilian witness.
And no witnesses at all who said that the van exploded.
It is strange, almost like no van actually exploded at all.Did they let the guys go after they searched the Van @ the command center loading up with explosives after and driving to 6th and king?? Who knows... again Timeline is important
But they're not. So a timeline is redundant.
If you think it's important, it's your job to track it down.That's my whole problem .. i tend to believe both
You either have to: 1. Invent an entire van and separate bomb scare for which there is no evidence or 2. come to the conclusion that one of them is wrong.
But since you "believe both", you then agree that a van exploded?
And if this is the case, why did you give out to Diogenes for suggesting you believed a van exploded?0 -
Pedantry and a strawman.
I said that running doesn't guarantee a charge of resisting arrest.
It doesn't.And police officers, like all people are fallible.the pair of suspects left the van and turned and moved away form the police officer, failing to notice or hear him, which he then misinterpreted as an attempt to flee.Or perhaps the cop's car was parked a good bit away and when they left the van and he had to run after them to get them to stop?But then this is all pretty irrelevant as them running does not prove their guilt.But that's not a given I'm afraid. I would like to see pictures of the van before and after, other witnesses to the van, the arrests and the explosion... Basically more that one source.So just to be sure, the only actual source you have that the van exploded was the record featured in the earlier video.
You have nothing else to confirm that happened?Because there might have been a bigger story that a false alarm bomb scare on 9/11?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Every example of a suspect running away from the police pre arrest is by definition resisting arrest.Brown Bomber wrote: »Therefore by that logic the witness testimony of "all people" is worthless due to their fallibility. Which is as nonsensical as it sounds.
It's possible that the police officer was wrong or misreported something.
So there are explanations that explain the facts without relying on a massive conspiracy that you can't even provide a ration explanation for.Brown Bomber wrote: »Absolutely ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous.
Why is either impossible?Brown Bomber wrote: »It's not irrelevant as it is "clearly" a strong indicator of wrongdoing.Brown Bomber wrote: »Well that's impossible due to the media blackout and investigations like the 9-11 Commission wilfully ignoring it. Where's Popular Mechanics when you need them?Brown Bomber wrote: »Internal communications from the Police Officers in the line of duty and on the scene describing the van exploding is ample evidence which you also wilfully ignore.
But since you actually are still ignoring my original point, I'm still somewhat doubtful.
So since your only evidence at all is the recording could you indicate which point of the video proves that the van exploded?Brown Bomber wrote: »Like building 7 falling while it was still standing? This is part of the 9.11 story and is an undeniably a newsworthy story. Don't let that stop you though.
But unfortunately a false bomb scare on a random street was not news on the day.0 -
And? Could it not be that they simply didn't bother too much with that snippet, it being a non-story and assumed that them both being on 6th meant that they were near each other?
Or that they considered 3km, or less between King and Barclay, to be "close"?
No i don't think it can ... But if you want it to be the way you describe it just to suit or explain your theory go right ahead,But there's no evidence to suggest that a second van existed when there are reasonable explanations for the discrepancy without inventing vast conspiracies or even a second van.
Again ...food for discussion, just as you try to do with your statement in the first quote ... but please explain " reasonable explanations for the discrepancy "But the report clearly states that the van with a mural did not explode.
You keep repeating that like a gospel ... its in the report yesThe report very much does not support what's in the video or what BB is claiming.
How can the report support or debunk what is not in the report ??? ... non point imoWhy is it not valid?
I've already posted an example of the police mistaking something clearly innocuous for a bomb and taking it seriously enough to call out the bomb squad, shut down streets and make arrests. And this is without the extra stress and panic of actual terrorist attacks occurring.
Because even in your own description there is plenty of time to check out the muralSo people mistaking something for a mural during this time to confusion, panic and stress is impossible?
Nothing is impossible .. bur for me not likely in this caseAnd there's not pictures of it's wreckage or it's damage despite exploding in the middle of the street on a day when thousands of people had their cameras out and the police getting people out of thier homes while they deal with it.
Yet there's not a single photo.
Not a single report beyond the transmission that BB posted.
Not one civilian witness.
And no witnesses at all who said that the van exploded.
Maybe because they ran away panicking ??But again this is based on the totally unsupported and silly premise that there was two or more vans or they are actually referring to two separate incidents.
But they're not. So a timeline is redundant.
If you think it's important, it's your job to track it down.
Yes i think it is important to look at it in every angle so i don't have to say that other people are just silly, see getting the timeline right should also be important for you ...so you can base part of your opinion on it maybe.So in that case, you cannot say that the report supports what BB is claiming.
You either have to: 1. Invent an entire van and separate bomb scare for which there is no evidence or 2. come to the conclusion that one of them is wrong.
I need more information to come to either conclusionBut since you "believe both", you then agree that a van exploded?
I see both as a possibility yes, with all that panic going on it could well beAnd if this is the case, why did you give out to Diogenes for suggesting you believed a van exploded?
where and what ??
And i see now how handy it is to use the "panic card"0 -
No i don't think it can ... But if you want it to be the way you describe it just to suit or explain your theory go right ahead,
Again ...food for discussion, just as you try to do with your statement in the first quote ... but please explain " reasonable explanations for the discrepancy "You keep repeating that like a gospel ... its in the report yes
How can the report support or debunk what is not in the report ??? ... non point imo
The report does not support the idea that any van exploded. The report does not supply evidence for a conspiracy or cast doubt on the official story.
If anything is a non-point it's you bringing up the report.Because even in your own description there is plenty of time to check out the mural
Nothing is impossible .. bur for me not likely in this case
How can this be?
Why can a similar but much less silly cock up not happen in New York on 9/11.Maybe because they ran away panicking ??
Typical.Yes i think it is important to look at it in every angle so i don't have to say that other people are just silly, see getting the timeline right should also be important for you ...so you can base part of your opinion on it maybe.
I don't think that the timeline is important as it would have little effect on my explanations.
However if you think it is important, why not provide it and show how it excludes my explanations.
But I think you either know that such a timeline wouldn't have an effect on my explanation, not could you actually put one together, hence why you are trying to deflect the point.I need more information to come to either conclusion
I see both as a possibility yes, with all that panic going on it could well be0 -
Advertisement
-
So why can't that be the explanation, but an entirely different van also with a mural, but is not mentioned in the report can be an explanation.?
Why would it be in the report ...plenty of things happened on 9/11 that didn't end up in that report but did happenBecause you don't seem to grasp the concept that the report is saying the exact opposite of what Brown Bomber is saying.
The report does not support the idea that any van exploded. The report does not supply evidence for a conspiracy or cast doubt on the official story.
If anything is a non-point it's you bringing up the report.
No it doesn't ... I said that where the Van was pulled over .. NEARBY the command center is miles away from 6th and King so maybe there could be another Van, not saying it is true but leaving the possibility open, the fact that it is not in the report doesn't mean it didn't happenAnd in the above example they had plenty of time to check out the devices, yet they still described them as "bomb like" and treated them as dangerous for hours.
How can this be?
Why can a similar but much less silly cock up not happen in New York on 9/11.
What devices ?? mentioned in the mti report where? and who described them as bomb like ??So you're going to be childish rather than address points?
Typical.
No I'm only trying to copy your way of thinking ..if you don't have any more interest in discussing this then say soWere I have said anyone is "just silly"?
Based on the 2 Van premise .. that silly thing i brought up sorry .... Now who is childish ?I don't think that the timeline is important as it would have little effect on my explanations.
However if you think it is important, why not provide it and show how it excludes my explanations.
But I think you either know that such a timeline wouldn't have an effect on my explanation, not could you actually put one together, hence why you are trying to deflect the point.
I asked you the same question because i couldn't find it ..you were assuming things again without knowing the chain of events that's why i asked you for the timelineYou seem to know exactly how it happened so I'll ask you for the sake of clarity
Could you give me the Timeline for the moving of the command centers ?? because I count 4 locations already
And the time the Van was stopped ??No I can't because neither source provides such information.
You are the one positing that there was two vans, the onus on you is to show that they both existed.So why do you think there was a second van at Barclay?
Neither the recording or the report indicate that there was any sort of suspicious van there.
And again your off on your assuming mission ... i said there is a possibility of maybe 2 Vans because of the distance between the Two locations, i need a timeline to check the possibility of two Vans and you could need the timeline to dismiss it ...And is it a possibility that there was no exploding van at all?
Who knows ... maybe his engine overheated on 6th and king causing a little blast ... stranger things did happen that dayAnd if this is the case, why did you give out to Diogenes for suggesting you believed a van exploded?
Care to explain this ? .. where ?? what ??? context please ??
Or is this another one of your unfounded but mature remarks ??0 -
Who stood to gain the most from the attacks on 9/11?0
-
Why would it be in the report ...plenty of things happened on 9/11 that didn't end up in that report but did happen
You said that the authors of the report couldn't have mistakenly believed that the van was closer to the command centre than it was, ot that they believed that 3km was "close".
So how do you know these explanations are impossible.No it doesn't ... I said that where the Van was pulled over .. NEARBY the command center is miles away from 6th and King so maybe there could be another Van, not saying it is true but leaving the possibility open, the fact that it is not in the report doesn't mean it didn't happenWhat devices ?? mentioned in the mti report where? and who described them as bomb like ??
So how is this possible if we are to believe what you are implying, that police can never mistake something for something else?No I'm only trying to copy your way of thinking ..if you don't have any more interest in discussing this then say soBased on the 2 Van premise .. that silly thing i brought up sorry .... Now who is childish ?
Inventing another van from thin air just so you don't have to disagree with BB is silly.I asked you the same question because i couldn't find it ..you were assuming things again without knowing the chain of events that's why i asked you for the timeline
And again your off on your assuming mission ... i said there is a possibility of maybe 2 Vans because of the distance between the Two locations, i need a timeline to check the possibility of two Vans and you could need the timeline to dismiss it ...
I provided explanations for the dependency based on both locations. So my explanation is not dependant on a timeline
Yours is, so the onus is on you to provide the timeline as it is the only thing you have to suggest there was two van.
All the other evidence and common sense points to there only being one van and that van not exploding as per the report that you provided.Who knows ... maybe his engine overheated on 6th and king causing a little blast ... stranger things did happen that day
So if there exists an explanation for the report that does not involve a massive conspiracy, why assume that this incident has anything to do with the massive conspiracy.Care to explain this ? .. where ?? what ??? context please ??
Or is this another one of your unfounded but mature remarks ??
You have spent the last few pages inventing imaginary vans so you can say there might have been an explosion.0 -
This is not an answer to my question or my point.
You said that the authors of the report couldn't have mistakenly believed that the van was closer to the command centre than it was, ot that they believed that 3km was "close".
So how do you know these explanations are impossible.
Not impossible but unlikely ... 3 km is a long way in ManhattanAnd the fact that it isn't in the report means that the report cannot be used as evidence to support the idea that there was a second van or that any van exploded, contrary to what you are claiming.
No I believe what is in the report and that there was something going on at 6th and king ... that's why timeline and location is important to me ...The device at the centre of the Boston bomb square. These were taken as serious threats for hours despite having a cartoon character on them.
So how is this possible if we are to believe what you are implying, that police can never mistake something for something else?
You can look all over the globe for situations to support your claim i don't careCalled your explanation silly, not you.
Inventing another van from thin air just so you don't have to disagree with BB is silly.
No again ... there is the Video and the report and all i try to do is to see if and how they are connected .. You claiming that I am inventing something that is already discussed on thread is silly don't you think ??What was I assuming exactly?
I provided explanations for the dependency based on both locations. So my explanation is not dependant on a timeline
You assumed that i stated there were 2 Vans i said possiblyYours is, so the onus is on you to provide the timeline as it is the only thing you have to suggest there was two van.
It will benefit the discussion and maybe proof me wrong, thats why its important for me ...All the other evidence and common sense points to there only being one van and that van not exploding as per the report that you provided.
In your narrow minded non fact finding view maybe yesYea maybe or maybe there wasn't an explosion at all?
So if there exists an explanation for the report that does not involve a massive conspiracy, why assume that this incident has anything to do with the massive conspiracy.
remember the mural painted on the Van as stated in the reportYou gave out to Diogenes for suggesting you might believe that there was an explosion despite what the report you posted said.
You have spent the last few pages inventing imaginary vans so you can say there might have been an explosion.
Again show me where !!! ... put up a quote showing me giving out to Di0genes ... and try to keep it in context this time .. .Otherwise try to keep these unfounded insinuations to yourself0 -
Not impossible but unlikely ... 3 km is a long way in Manhattan
And this does not explain the possibility that they simply thought it was closer that it was.
You know what really is actually unlikely? A second van for which there's no evidence for it's existence.No I believe what is in the report and that there was something going on at 6th and king ... that's why timeline and location is important to me ...You can look all over the globe for situations to support your claim i don't care
However the fact remains we have an example of a police force mistaking something for something else and treating it as serious threat. Exactly what you are saying is unlikely on 9/11.No again ... there is the Video and the report and all i try to do is to see if and how they are connected .. You claiming that I am inventing something that is already discussed on thread is silly don't you think ??
You assumed that i stated there were 2 Vans i said possibly
A van for which there is no evidence for at all is not a likely explanation.It will benefit the discussion and maybe proof me wrong, thats why its important for me ...remember the mural painted on the Van as stated in the report
You see that's the question I started asking, but have yet to see an answer for.0 -
Advertisement
-
According to your opinion, someone else could consider 3km is not a long way.
And this does not explain the possibility that they simply thought it was closer that it was.
No you are not making any sense there .. its not what you think is right its what's in the report .... you can argue this to hell and back but 3 km is not nearby in Manhattan and remember this is the command center closest to 6th and king not necessarily the one the Van got stoppedYou know what really is actually unlikely? A second van for which there's no evidence for it's existence.
Its claimed in the video ..you haven't been able to debunk itThen by all means find and post the timeline as your argument is dependant on it. Mine is not. I do not think that a timeline is important to my argument or that it is even possible to find.
You couldn't come up with one neither am I ... its still important though
scenario could be Van searched at CC at 11 and exploded 6th and king at 1 pmSo basically you're just going to ignore bits of evidence you don't like...
If it suits you to fabricate your theory please use itHowever the fact remains we have an example of a police force mistaking something for something else and treating it as serious threat. Exactly what you are saying is unlikely on 9/11.
Please provide facts that these incidents are the same ??And it's a far more likely possibility that the report and the video are referring to the same van that did not explode.
A van for which there is no evidence for at all is not a likely explanation
I think its really interesting that you will settle for the far more likely idea even if that means getting bits an pieces from incidents elsewhere to support your "likely claim"Unfortunatly, that's not how logic works. If you think it proves your claim or theory, you can post it.
No its how your logic works thats differentSo how does this mural make it part of a conspiracy?
You see that's the question I started asking, but have yet to see an answer for.
A Van driving around in Manhattan with a Mural of a plane htting the WTC on 9/11 right after the attacks could make it part of a conspiracy yes
About answering questions ..... How about you answering mine ..you know the one you claimed i was giving out to di0genes the one i asked for a proper answer 3 times .... still waiting
Your always giving out to people not answering your questions but this is the third discussion we are having that you cannot backup your claims ... i see a pattern forming0 -
No you are not making any sense there .. its not what you think is right its what's in the report .... you can argue this to hell and back but 3 km is not nearby in Manhattan and remember this is the command center closest to 6th and king not necessarily the one the Van got stoppedIts claimed in the video ..you haven't been able to debunk itYou couldn't come up with one neither am I ... its still important though
scenario could be Van searched at CC at 11 and exploded 6th and king at 1 pm
You think the timeline is important to prove these explanations.
I do not think that the timeline is important for my explanation.
I'm not going to do your work for you and provide you with the timeline.
If you want a timeline, go get it.If it suits you to fabricate your theory please use itPlease provide facts that these incidents are the same ??I think its really interesting that you will settle for the far more likely idea even if that means getting bits an pieces from incidents elsewhere to support your "likely claim"
The idea it's possible that people can misidentify stuff? Or that they can make a mistake in a report? Or that they can have different ideas of a subjective word?
So please explain why each of these could not possibly have been at play.No its how your logic works thats different
I'm not going to bother finding the timeline for you because 1. I don't think it's relevant. 2. I don't think it's possible. 3. You won't accept it anyway.A Van driving around in Manhattan with a Mural of a plane htting the WTC on 9/11 right after the attacks could make it part of a conspiracy yes0 -
And the other explanation I gave involved them thinking it was closer than it actually was.
Again ..ridiculous claim, look if your theory doesn't make any sense admit it ..Not very difficult for mostNo the video and BB clearly believe that the van in the report is the same van in the recording, just that the report is lying about it not exploding.
Proof please,,, looks like another one of your unsupported claimsOk, great, then provide the evidence to support this.
You think the timeline is important to prove these explanations.
I do not think that the timeline is important for my explanation.
Again, the timeline could be crucial in this discussion ...it looks to me you have no interest at all in debating this theory,
I always thought you are the kind of person who wants clarity and all in discussions (proof evidence) ... Now it looks you have very little to ad to the debate other then taking down your opponent.I'm not going to do your work for you and provide you with the timeline.
If you want a timeline, go get it.
Your unfounded assumptions earlier and later quoted by me could be easily verified by a timeline ..That's why i ask you for it first remember
I know that when you are running out of options your replies are getting more and more incoherent but for discussion sake we could work together to debunk or prove a point, I have no trouble finding things for you on google rememberBut I'm not fabricating anything, I'm providing you an example of the exact thing you said is unlikely to happen.
Then show me the relevance between the two incidents ... you come up with something new ... at least make an effort to proof itThey both refer to the van with a mural. No other reports confirm any other vans with a mural. The description of the actions of the police in the report match the recording.
No other reports?? what reports ?
The description of the actions of police can be found anywhere because its standard procedureAnd what "bits and pieces" are these?
The idea it's possible that people can misidentify stuff? Or that they can make a mistake in a report? Or that they can have different ideas of a subjective word?
So please explain why each of these could not possibly have been at play
You are dragging in the Boston thing not me.
So when I'm reading this correctly, There can only be mistakes in certain reports when it suits your own theoryNope, it's one of the basics I'm afraid.
I'm not going to bother finding the timeline for you because 1. I don't think it's relevant. 2. I don't think it's possible. 3. You won't accept it anyway.
Again 1. I brought up the timeline myself as being important in this discussion, specialy when it comes to going to different CC at certain times, 2. again the fact that you don't find it relevant doesn't make it inrelevant 3. exactly my point YOU are not interested in the discussion you are here to piss people off,Ok, how is it a part of the conspiracy?
2.You won't accept it anyway (sounds familiar ??)
About answering questions ..... How about you answering mine ..you know the one you claimed i was giving out to di0genes the one i asked for a proper answer 4 times .... still waiting
Your always giving out to people not answering your questions but this is the third discussion we are having that you cannot backup your claims ... i see a pattern forming
Are you sure your not just mistaking trolling for proper discussion?0 -
I will not give another warning after this. Stop being so aggressive in your posts. All of you. If you have a problem with a post or poster, or think they're trolling, report it.
Any more accusations of trolling and the user gets a minimum one week ban.0 -
Again ..ridiculous claim, look if your theory doesn't make any sense admit it ..Not very difficult for most
The van and the command centre were both on 6th. Someone unfamiliar with New York might have believed that this means that they were very close as I did before looking it up.
And even then I would consider 3 km or less than a five minute drive to be "close".
So please explain why either of these explanations are impossible or ridiculous specifically.
Simply claiming that they are does not make them so.Again, the timeline could be crucial in this discussion
I can see why it might be crucial for your explanation seeing as it would be the only thing to support the existence of the imaginary second van.
However my explanation is not dependant on the timeline. I do not require a timeline to support my explanation.
So I see no need to find the timeline just as I see no need to go make your points for you.
If you want the timeline, go nuts and post.You are dragging in the Boston thing not me.
Exactly what I am saying happened with this truck.
So the Boston example shows that it can and does happen, regardless of how obviously non-threatening something is.
So again, since it has actually happened before, what is impossible or ridiculous about the police misidentifying something as a "mural" and treating it as a threat.
And of course even though you are claiming that my explanations are ridiculous and unlikely, you've failed to actually provide a solid consistent alternative which is not ridiculous or likely by your standards.
So again, how does this van (or vans, if we are to allow our imaginations to wander) fit into a conspiracy?0 -
Ok, why is it ridiculous?
The van and the command centre were both on 6th. Someone unfamiliar with New York might have believed that this means that they were very close as I did before looking it up.
It is a report we are talking about not a tourist who is in New york for the first timeAnd even then I would consider 3 km or less than a five minute drive to be "close".
5 mins ?? here in Kerry maybe ..but not downtown Manhattan I'm afraidSo, why is it crucial?
I can see why it might be crucial for your explanation seeing as it would be the only thing to support the existence of the imaginary second van.
Yes correct it would give a clearer pictureHowever my explanation is not dependant on the timeline. I do not require a timeline to support my explanation.
That depends on what command center they are talking aboutBecause it's an example of the police misidentifying something that is clearly not a bomb or suspicious and a massive, serious operation springing from this mistake.
Exactly what I am saying happened with this truck.
So the Boston example shows that it can and does happen, regardless of how obviously non-threatening something is.
Police sees a Van with paintings of a plane hitting the WTC nearby the command post just after the biggest terrorist attack in History, with Two middle easterners that don't speak a word of English and you think this is "obviously non-threatening"So again, since it has actually happened before, what is impossible or ridiculous about the police misidentifying something as a "mural" and treating it as a threat.
You believe that you can copy the Boston incident onto this fine by me, I just stick with the report ... If you don't agree fineAnd of course even though you are claiming that my explanations are ridiculous and unlikely, you've failed to actually provide a solid consistent alternative which is not ridiculous or likely by your standards.
Again Timeline ... Can expose my wrong and proof I'm right
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
Another link with claims of more VansSo again, how does this van (or vans, if we are to allow our imaginations to wander) fit into a conspiracy?
Again the Mural and the lack of attention it got
And again can you give me the quote that i gave out to di0genes so i can give him my sincere apologies
If you can't ..... be a man and just admit you make those remarks just to wind people up0 -
It is a report we are talking about not a tourist who is in New york for the first time
5 mins ?? here in Kerry maybe ..but not downtown Manhattan I'm afraid
Again they could have mistakenly believed that the command centre being on 6th and the van being on 6th meant that they were very nearby.
Or they could have considered 3 km "close". What your opinion of that their opinion should be does not take away form the fact that it is subjective.
So so please precisiely why these two explanations are impossible or unlikely.Yes correct it would give a clearer pictureThat depends on what command center they are talking aboutPolice sees a Van with paintings of a plane hitting the WTC nearby the command post just after the biggest terrorist attack in History, with Two middle easterners that don't speak a word of English and you think this is "obviously non-threatening"
You believe that you can copy the Boston incident onto this fine by me, I just stick with the report ... If you don't agree fine
None of that seems very consistent and all points to the fact that this "mural" was pretty open to interruption.
But then my example shows that the police finding this threatening does not prove anything, because the police also found images of a cartoon character made out of lite-brites "threatening."
The police make mistakes like that.
you can ignore that fact if you like.Again Timeline ... Can expose my wrong and proof I'm right
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
Another link with claims of more VansAgain the Mural and the lack of attention it got
And the thousand other questions that claiming that the van are part of the conspiracy seems to beg.
Again you plug your ears and pretend that my explanation doesn't make sense or is unlikely. But no one has actually been able to show any sane or rational alternative that shows the conspiracy.0 -
As I mentioned the mural could have been of a plane flying over the NYC skyline, and it was misconstrued in the panic and confusion as being a plane flying into the twin towers.The burden of proof lies with the claimant.If you can point me to any section of the NIST where is makes a unsubstantiated claim I'd be happy to read it.
if you have read it, then you should say that, and confirm that you agree with it completely ...0 -
And neither explain why either explanation is impossible or unlikely.
Again they could have mistakenly believed that the command centre being on 6th and the van being on 6th meant that they were very nearby.
Or they could have considered 3 km "close". What your opinion of that their opinion should be does not take away form the fact that it is subjective.
So so please precisiely why these two explanations are impossible or unlikely.
I believe the report, i think it is common sense that 3 km in Manhattan is not nearby, again your opinion against mine, please don/t think in behalf of the makers of the report ...it makes your claim less and less believable...Great, so you're not posting it because...?
I don't have it unfortunatelyWell first off you, the video and the report use a lot a different descriptions of the so called mural. So far it's been "A plane flying towards the twin towers" and "A plane flying towards New York" then there's also "the plane flying in.." and the "plane exploding over..."
None of that seems very consistent and all points to the fact that this "mural" was pretty open to interruption.
But then my example shows that the police finding this threatening does not prove anything, because the police also found images of a cartoon character made out of lite-brites "threatening."
The police make mistakes like that.
you can ignore that fact if you like.
I believe the claims of the report about the mural .... You don't so come up with proof/evidence of a different scenario.... not only your opinion/example .
There was also nothing suspicious about that ryder truck in Oklahoma city and we all know the outcome of that
And again can you give me the quote that i gave out to di0genes so i can give him my sincere apologies0 -
I believe the report, i think it is common sense that 3 km in Manhattan is not nearby, again your opinion against mine,
It's almost as if the word has a subjective meaning or something...please don/t think in behalf of the makers of the report ...it makes your claim less and less believable...
I've suggested a pair of plausible explanations. Your alternative is a a second van for which there is no evidence for and presupposes a vast conspiracy.
You have not been able to suggest why my explanations are wrong or implausible you have just stated they are and refused to support your argument.I don't have it unfortunately
So now that you have not got the time table you have nothing at all to support the idea of a second van, besides your opinion of someone else's opinion.I believe the claims of the report about the mural .... You don't so come up with proof/evidence of a different scenario.... not only your opinion/example .
Like maybe a completely innocuous advertising thing with a picture of a cartoon character made out of a children's toy?
So it happened then, why can't it happen on 9/11?
And then what is the scenario you are suggesting that explains why there were these mural trucks in the first place?
Can you provide the same thing you are asking me for, complete with evidence/proof?
And since you believe the claims of the report, do you believe that the truck was "an innocent delivery truck"?
Because you seem to be trying to suggest that it's a part of the conspiracy, counter to the claims of the report.There was also nothing suspicious about that ryder truck in Oklahoma city and we all know the outcome of that
And what exactly is the point you're trying to make here?
Do you think that I am suggesting that the police should not have checked the mural truck?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
nobody is banning you from making examples. we'd just like it to be relevant examples ... that's all.
Can you explain how Weisses's example is relevant to either of our points?0 -
So can you explain why an example of the police taking a clearly innocuous item as a serious threat is not relevant to my point.
Can you explain how Weisses's example is relevant to either of our points?
we'll take it from there ...0 -
can you state your point and your example, as well as why you think weisses's example is not relevant?
we'll take it from there ...
Well I have done so several times.
I am suggesting that the police mistook what was painted on the van as a "mural" of the attacks.
I am using my example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) to show that the police can and do mistake innocuous items (such as the items in my example) as something threatening.
Hence my example is an example of what I am claiming could possibly and likely did happen.
Hence it is relevant.
I do not know if Weisses's example is relevant or not because I do not know what point he is attempting to make, that's why I asked him.
Nearest I can guess is that he is trying to suggest that I am claiming that the police never get it right or that something that looks innocent could be dangerous.
The first I am not claiming and is therefore not relevant, the second is irrelevant because I have not claimed otherwise and we are not discussing something the police regarded as "innocent".
So again, why is my example not relevant and why is Weisses's?0 -
Well I have done so several times.
I am suggesting that the police mistook what was painted on the van as a "mural" of the attacks.I am using my example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) to show that the police can and do mistake innocuous items (such as the items in my example) as something threatening.
Hence my example is an example of what I am claiming could possibly and likely did happen.Hence it is relevant.
it is relevant if your point is that police misclassifying devices, or more generally, police make mistakes.
if its the first point, then you have failed to show how the police not getting a clear look at a van is similar to police looking at a device, calling backup and after further investigation, incorrectly determined the device to be a i.e.d..
if it is the second point, you are claiming that police make mistakes, so anything and everything they have done could be a mistake, with a high probability.I do not know if Weisses's example is relevant or not because I do not know what point he is attempting to make, that's why I asked him.Nearest I can guess is that he is trying to suggest that I am claiming that the police never get it right or that something that looks innocent could be dangerous.
The first I am not claiming and is therefore not relevant, the second is irrelevant because I have not claimed otherwise and we are not discussing something the police regarded as "innocent".
this is different to the police being mistaken in what they saw in a mural, and their actions based upon that.So again, why is my example not relevant and why is Weisses's?0 -
that is fair enough. you are claiming that they did not see the mural clearly.you have an example of police making a mistake in judgement regarding the classification of certain devices.
you are missing the context here.
it is relevant if your point is that police misclassifying devices, or more generally, police make mistakes.
if its the first point, then you have failed to show how the police not getting a clear look at a van is similar to police looking at a device, calling backup and after further investigation, incorrectly determined the device to be a i.e.d..
if it is the second point, you are claiming that police make mistakes, so anything and everything they have done could be a mistake, with a high probability.
So it's likely that the same thing happened in the 9/11 example.
They either saw a van with something that could have been mistaken as the claimed mural, or heard second hand reports of the mural, and treating it as suspicious and dangerous.but you are claiming that sometimes the police identify something incorrectly (as dangerous).
this is different to the police being mistaken in what they saw in a mural, and their actions based upon that.0 -
That's not what I claimed or was claiming.
But the thing is, the police in my example were looking at the "devices" clearly and could still see that they had a cartoon character on them, yet they were still treated as dangerous and they declared them as such.
So it's likely that the same thing happened in the 9/11 example.
They either saw a van with something that could have been mistaken as the claimed mural, or heard second hand reports of the mural, and treating it as suspicious and dangerous.
Ok, why is it different?
similarly the reason the vans are suspicious, were not the murals alone, but the fact of who was driving them and what was happening that day.0 -
the cartoon character was not what made them think they were dangerous, the electronics and circuit boards visible were what resulted in them being classified as dangerous.
similarly the reason the vans are suspicious, were not the murals alone, but the fact of who was driving them and what was happening that day.
But in both cases they clearly misidentified what they saw, showing that the police can misidentify what they say and take these things seriously on very flimsy basis.
So the police reporting a "mural" does not necessarily mean it actually was a mural when there are much more plausible explanations.0 -
And at no point did I ever argue that the police were not justified in stopping and searching the van.
But in both cases they clearly misidentified what they saw, showing that the police can misidentify what they say and take these things seriously on very flimsy basis.
So the police reporting a "mural" does not necessarily mean it actually was a mural when there are much more plausible explanations.
i'll try a different angle so ...
so at no point was there a van there?
what about the buildings that the plane flew into? just because the police reported that planes flew into buildings, as you claim with your example, does not necessarily mean it actually happened, when there are much more plausible explanations.
does that show you the fallacy in your example and the argument you are using to apply it in this context?0 -
Advertisement
-
ok, you are saying that incorrect deduction is equivalent to incorrect reporting
If you would prefer to actually address what I said however...i'll try a different angle so ...
so at no point was there a van there?what about the buildings that the plane flew into? just because the police reported that planes flew into buildings, as you claim with your example, does not necessarily mean it actually happened, when there are much more plausible explanations.
does that show you the fallacy in your example and the argument you are using to apply it in this context?
With the planes we have 100's of hours of video, 1000's of photos, multiple eyewitnesses confirming the exact same thing independently, the resulting damage and found wreckage and human remains positively identifying the exact planes that crashed.
Now had the example you are now using been applicable to what I'm actually saying, we would have no photos or video, no wreckage, no damage and a bare handful of witnesses who all give different and contradictory statements.
Now if a police officer claimed that he saw a plane hit, and all of that stuff applied, would you believe him? Or would you look for a more plausible answer?
And it's the same here. There's no photo or video showing the mural (let alone any evidence that the van exploded) and everyone gave conflicting reports of the mural. And then the idea of a van having a mural does not make a lick of sense, no one has been able to offer even a stupid sounding conspiracy explanation for the van let alone a a sane rational one.
So the most likely explanation from the verifiable evidence is that the van was an innocent deliver truck that had either a logo or an advertisement on it that was misconstrued by the police (or someone reporting it to the police) to be depicting an attack. The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it really wasn't, exactly like in the Boston example I posted.0 -
I've been reading through all of this, and the only thing I can conclude is that King Mob is a Zionist troll who tends to obfuscate. As for the Dancing Israelis being Mossad, it was established early on in the investigation - the 2nd and 4th video on this page go over that - it was also mentioned in the Jewish Daily Forward very early on. As for the above linked blog being "biased" - well, that does not change the fact of the FBI report, which is viewable outside of said blog. It looks like this poster, KM, is the biased one.0
-
Millicent Fenwick wrote: »I've been reading through all of this, and the only thing I can conclude is that King Mob is a Zionist troll who tends to obfuscate. As for the Dancing Israelis being Mossad, it was established early on in the investigation - the 2nd and 4th video on this page go over that - it was also mentioned in the Jewish Daily Forward very early on. As for the above linked blog being "biased" - well, that does not change the fact of the FBI report, which is viewable outside of said blog. It looks like this poster, KM, is the biased one.
If you've been reading through all of this, you would have seen this post:I will not give another warning after this. Stop being so aggressive in your posts. All of you. If you have a problem with a post or poster, or think they're trolling, report it.
Any more accusations of trolling and the user gets a minimum one week ban.
You just accused King Mob of being a troll, so take a week long stroll away from this forum.0 -
If you would prefer to actually address what I said however...what about the buildings that the plane flew into? just because the police reported that planes flew into buildings, as you claim with your example, does not necessarily mean it actually happened, when there are much more plausible explanations.
does that show you the fallacy in your example and the argument you are using to apply it in this context?With the planes we have 100's of hours of video, 1000's of photos, multiple eyewitnesses confirming the exact same thing independently, the resulting damage and found wreckage and human remains positively identifying the exact planes that crashed.
what are police reports if not eyewitnesses?
there is no footage or photos of the plane flying into the pentagon, yet for some strange reason you believe that?Now had the example you are now using been applicable to what I'm actually saying, we would have no photos or video, no wreckage, no damage and a bare handful of witnesses who all give different and contradictory statements.
Now if a police officer claimed that he saw a plane hit, and all of that stuff applied, would you believe him? Or would you look for a more plausible answer?
in the scenario of the mural, the other information is that are other multiple eyewitnesses and more importantly that the police stopped the van and had a look at it ...And it's the same here. There's no photo or video showing the mural (let alone any evidence that the van exploded) and everyone gave conflicting reports of the mural. And then the idea of a van having a mural does not make a lick of sense, no one has been able to offer even a stupid sounding conspiracy explanation for the van let alone a a sane rational one.
was a photo taken of the mural on the van, and it is been held as classified?
i don't know if this is real or fake, but is this the mural?
http://investigate911.info/media/1/20111111-van_israel.jpg
now regarding the van exploding, that is different to the mural, so it is not relevant in this argument, though the van clearly did not explode and kill the police men as they managed to report seeing the mural.
can you show the statistical spread of the conflicting reports? you do realise that being humans, there will always be a degree of error and a degree of difference in interpretation of images.
and what sane reason do you need for the mural? they painted a mural to celebrate their mission? they thought it would be funny to drive around town in the van distracting police?
i've seen many sane reasons, but you can't seem to admit the exist.So the most likely explanation from the verifiable evidence is that the van was an innocent deliver truck that had either a logo or an advertisement on it that was misconstrued by the police (or someone reporting it to the police) to be depicting an attack. The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it really wasn't, exactly like in the Boston example I posted.
care to tell me the likelihood? what percentage confidence interval are you using?
no wonder we've being going around in circles, you don't understand logic.
"The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it really wasn't, exactly like in the Boston example I posted" incorrect. it was suspicious, in both cases.
this does not imply "The most likely explanation from the verifiable evidence is that the van was an innocent deliver truck that had either a logo or an advertisement on it that was misconstrued by the police"
and to sum it up in one sentence: your example is not in context and completely irrelevant and the logic you are using to join them is wrong.0 -
well it is not a straw-man, it is what you are saying. it seems childish because it a silly argument to make, yet for some reason you are making it.
i thought i did.look, i'm not saying that you are saying that there is no van, i'm saying that using your example of police misidentifying things, they could have misidentified "nothing" as a van, and then wrote a report on it.so now videos and photos are on the same league as multiple eyewitnesses?
what are police reports if not eyewitnesses?
No they are not in the same league. But hundreds of people describing the same thing that is backed up with video, photo and physical evidence is much much stronger than a handful of conflicting witness reports none of which are supported by any other evidence.there is no footage or photos of the plane flying into the pentagon, yet for some strange reason you believe that?the example i gave is very applicable, you just brought other information into the argument, ie the photos.
in the scenario of the mural, the other information is that are other multiple eyewitnesses and more importantly that the police stopped the van and had a look at it ...
And then I argue that this evidence is what distinguishes them.
For the van you have a scant few witnesses all saying the mural was of different things. No video, no photos, nothing.was a photo taken of the mural on the van, and it is been held as classified?
i don't know if this is real or fake, but is this the mural?
http://investigate911.info/media/1/20111111-van_israel.jpg
And so we come to the point were you have to suppose vast conspiracies to support your idea, making your story implausible.can you show the statistical spread of the conflicting reports? you do realise that being humans, there will always be a degree of error and a degree of difference in interpretation of images.
And since this is the cause, do you believe that this makes it possible that some people could interpret an innocent non-threatening image or logo etc as depicting the attack?and what sane reason do you need for the mural? they painted a mural to celebrate their mission? they thought it would be funny to drive around town in the van distracting police?
i've seen many sane reasons, but you can't seem to admit the exist.
Cause they don't actually sound sane at all.
Maybe I can't admit they exist, because they don't.no, that is 100% the wrong conclusion.
care to tell me the likelihood? what percentage confidence interval are you using?
You keep using these terms, but I don't see why as none of them are actually applicable to a discussion.
It's almost as if you are using them like technobabble to sound clever.no wonder we've being going around in circles, you don't understand logic.
"The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it really wasn't, exactly like in the Boston example I posted" incorrect. it was suspicious, in both cases.
If you prefer to focus on that, point can be written as:
"The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it in fact was innocent, exactly like in the Boston example I posted"
This is the point I was making, please address that, not strawmen, or grammar or what you think "logic" is.this does not imply "The most likely explanation from the verifiable evidence is that the van was an innocent deliver truck that had either a logo or an advertisement on it that was misconstrued by the police"
and to sum it up in one sentence: your example is not in context and completely irrelevant and the logic you are using to join them is wrong.
I believe that the van was an example of the police misidentifying some and treating it as suspicious when it was just a logo or a piece of advertising on an innocent delivery truck.
And since you cannot show how this is impossible or unlikely and you are unable to provide a sane, rational alternative explanation that is supported by anything, my explanation is most likely the case.0 -
And I say it's common sense that 3km is close.
It's almost as if the word has a subjective meaning or something...
No its not ..not in manhattanBut you are "thinking in behalf of the makers of the report". You are saying they meant a a different truck. You are saying that they could not have possibly meant what I am suggesting that they could have meant.
I've suggested a pair of plausible explanations. Your alternative is a a second van for which there is no evidence for and presupposes a vast conspiracy.
You have not been able to suggest why my explanations are wrong or implausible you have just stated they are and refused to support your argument.
Again i believe the report if you don't explain/proof why and leave out your suggestion/maybe's and could have's this timeSo now that you have not got the time table you have nothing at all to support the idea of a second van, besides your opinion of someone else's opinion.
Like you have nothing that debunks the reportLike perhaps the police misidentifying something innocuous as a serious threat?
Like maybe a completely innocuous advertising thing with a picture of a cartoon character made out of a children's toy?
No that is not what the report says ....So it happened then, why can't it happen on 9/11?
And then what is the scenario you are suggesting that explains why there were these mural trucks in the first place?
Can you provide the same thing you are asking me for, complete with evidence/proof?
And since you believe the claims of the report, do you believe that the truck was "an innocent delivery truck"?
Because you seem to be trying to suggest that it's a part of the conspiracy, counter to the claims of the report.
So you're banning me from using examples for other situations while then using your own when it suits you.
No i don't need to proof anything besides the second Van .. again A timeline could even rule that out (same van driving up to 6th and king later) ...
You on the other hand need to backup your claims from the parts you don't believe from the report
And you bringing up Wikipedia links to make your claim is not evidence/proof now is it0 -
Advertisement
-
Well unfortunately that is not the argument I am making, it's a dishonest strawman that you are trying to force because you can't actually address my real argument.
And there's another strawman.
And another.
No they are not in the same league. But hundreds of people describing the same thing that is backed up with video, photo and physical evidence is much much stronger than a handful of conflicting witness reports none of which are supported by any other evidence.
Again, we've the resulting damage and wreckage that could have only been a plane. And of course all of the dozens of witnesses all confirming it was a plane.
Yes other information to show how it has much more evidence to support what had happened compared to the example of the van.
And then I argue that this evidence is what distinguishes them.
For the van you have a scant few witnesses all saying the mural was of different things. No video, no photos, nothing.
Lol, that's clearly fake.
And so we come to the point were you have to suppose vast conspiracies to support your idea, making your story implausible.
Yes, I do realise that. It's pretty much the point I'm making.
And since this is the cause, do you believe that this makes it possible that some people could interpret an innocent non-threatening image or logo etc as depicting the attack?
Really? Those are the sanest reasons you can come up with?
Cause they don't actually sound sane at all.
Maybe I can't admit they exist, because they don't.
Well seeing as you've not provide a single, sane, coherent alternative the confidence is pretty high.
You keep using these terms, but I don't see why as none of them are actually applicable to a discussion.
It's almost as if you are using them like technobabble to sound clever.
Unfortunately I do understand logic, above is pedantry however.
If you prefer to focus on that, point can be written as:
"The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it in fact was innocent, exactly like in the Boston example I posted"
This is the point I was making, please address that, not strawmen, or grammar or what you think "logic" is.
But it does. I have an example of the police misidentifying something and treating it as suspicious when it was just an advertising campaign.
I believe that the van was an example of the police misidentifying some and treating it as suspicious when it was just a logo or a piece of advertising on an innocent delivery truck.
And since you cannot show how this is impossible or unlikely and you are unable to provide a sane, rational alternative explanation that is supported by anything, my explanation is most likely the case.
You can write down whatever you want and keep dodging questions with your straw man tactic but
Again where is proof/evidence that the report is wrong ?0 -
No its not ..not in manhattan
How far away can something be considered "Close"?Again i believe the report if you don't explain/proof why and leave out your suggestion/maybe's and could have's this time
Why exactly should I leave out "maybe and could"? Should I just declare what they believed even though I can't actually know?
Or should I just stick to suggesting what is the most likely explanation.Like you have nothing that debunks the reportNo that is not what the report says ....
Do you know what the report does not say? That there were two vans with murals.
That's you doing all the things you are trying to tell me not to do or accusing me of doing.
You are claiming something that's not in the report. You are using "coulds and maybes".No i don't need to proof anything besides the second Van .. again A timeline could even rule that out (same van driving up to 6th and king later) ...
Why are you continuing to bring this up. I'm not going to find a timeline I don't believe I can find in the first place. Nor do I need to find it to support my arguments.
You however do need to the find it to support yours. Until you do your argument is unsupported. I believe it will remain so as I think the timeline cannot be found.You on the other hand need to backup your claims from the parts you don't believe from the report
Which claims have I made that require me to back them up?And you bringing up Wikipedia links to make your claim is not evidence/proof now is it
My example shows that the police and misidentify something, take it as a serious threat, but later discover it was totally harmless. Which is what I'm arguing happened to the van. And that's what the report says.You can write down whatever you want and keep dodging questions with your straw man tactic but
Again where is proof/evidence that the report is wrong ?
Also I think you don't actually understand what a strawman argument is....0 -
Says who exactly? What is this based on? Your opinion of what another persons opinion of a subjective word should be?
How far away can something be considered "Close"?
I do believe the report.
Why exactly should I leave out "maybe and could"? Should I just declare what they believed even though I can't actually know?
Or should I just stick to suggesting what is the most likely explanation.
I am not trying to debunk the report.
Well it says that the van was an innocent delivery truck.
Do you know what the report does not say? That there were two vans with murals.
That's you doing all the things you are trying to tell me not to do or accusing me of doing.
You are claiming something that's not in the report. You are using "coulds and maybes".
That's great, so post the timeline if you can and want.
Why are you continuing to bring this up. I'm not going to find a timeline I don't believe I can find in the first place. Nor do I need to find it to support my arguments.
You however do need to the find it to support yours. Until you do your argument is unsupported. I believe it will remain so as I think the timeline cannot be found.
Which parts do I not believe from the report?
Which claims have I made that require me to back them up?
Then you are either using a strawman or you simply did not understand the point I was making.
My example shows that the police and misidentify something, take it as a serious threat, but later discover it was totally harmless. Which is what I'm arguing happened to the van. And that's what the report says.
Again, I don't believe the report is wrong, why do you think that?
Also I think you don't actually understand what a strawman argument is....
So finally you agree that the mural with the planes crashing into the WTC as mentioned in the report is accurate .... sigh0 -
Well unfortunately that is not the argument I am making, it's a dishonest strawman that you are trying to force because you can't actually address my real argument.And there's another strawman.
And another.No they are not in the same league. But hundreds of people describing the same thing that is backed up with video, photo and physical evidence is much much stronger than a handful of conflicting witness reports none of which are supported by any other evidence.Again, we've the resulting damage and wreckage that could have only been a plane. And of course all of the dozens of witnesses all confirming it was a plane.
which is the more simple answer? that a plane flew into a building or people are wrong?Yes other information to show how it has much more evidence to support what had happened compared to the example of the van.
And then I argue that this evidence is what distinguishes them.
For the van you have a scant few witnesses all saying the mural was of different things. No video, no photos, nothing.Lol, that's clearly fake.
you know how trained police officers get confused with what they see, i wonder how an civilian can tell that that picture is fake ....And so we come to the point were you have to suppose vast conspiracies to support your idea, making your story implausible.
secondly, just because you assume that one has to suppose something does not make the story implausible.
facts in real life make it implausible.
you should watch mythbusters, it might explain things better for you ...Yes, I do realise that. It's pretty much the point I'm making.
well good for you, your whole argument is "people make mistakes" genius!!!And since this is the cause, do you believe that this makes it possible that some people could interpret an innocent non-threatening image or logo etc as depicting the attack?
Really? Those are the sanest reasons you can come up with?
Cause they don't actually sound sane at all.
Maybe I can't admit they exist, because they don't.
Well seeing as you've not provide a single, sane, coherent alternative the confidence is pretty high.
You keep using these terms, but I don't see why as none of them are actually applicable to a discussion.
It's almost as if you are using them like technobabble to sound clever.
Unfortunately I do understand logic, above is pedantry however.
If you prefer to focus on that, point can be written as:
"The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it in fact was innocent, exactly like in the Boston example I posted"
This is the point I was making, please address that, not strawmen, or grammar or what you think "logic" is.
But it does. I have an example of the police misidentifying something and treating it as suspicious when it was just an advertising campaign.
I believe that the van was an example of the police misidentifying some and treating it as suspicious when it was just a logo or a piece of advertising on an innocent delivery truck.
And since you cannot show how this is impossible or unlikely and you are unable to provide a sane, rational alternative explanation that is supported by anything, my explanation is most likely the case.
i will now counter your argument that you are in fact wrong because "people make mistakes" ...0 -
I do believe the report.
...
I am not trying to debunk the report.
....
Which parts do I not believe from the report?
Which claims have I made that require me to back them up?
huh? seriously? then wtf was the whole point of people make mistakes? unless you are trying to show that you made a mistake?
i now agree, you should be banned from making/giving examples ...0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement