|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 13, 2006 13:43:59 GMT -4
you have utterly failed to get the point. The view of the first plane hitting the tower would have a greater psychological effect than other cameras catching the event After it happened. Why? I can even show that you are incorrect. The videos that get shown the most are of the second aircraft impact, the two towers burning and each tower falling NOT the short video of the first aircraft impact. If the idea was to get horrific video of the first impact and use that to garner outrage in the USA and demands for revenge then it seems the supposed Mossad crew botched the job. Not only is that video used much less than many others, at the time it was videoed only one of the two crew members was in position to film it. If they had two cameras then they would have been better off to have both there. If there had not been a suspected gas leak then Jules would not have been where he was. You may suggest that the gas leak was a set up but you cannot explain why they did not both go to it IF their whole raison d'etre was to get footage of that first impact. I do have an open mind but as another has stated before I refuse to open my mind so far as to have my brains fall out. Your excuse for someone to have put their mark on paper money years in advance of the events is ,,,, vanity???
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 13:54:06 GMT -4
it is up to the media to show what they want. probably the Mossad did what it should in hope that the media would put it more. Putting it once, to me, can serve the job.
Again, maybe this is not true. I can't state this as proof, but to say the Mossad didn't know about it is outlandish. The site I gave states clearly that they knew. Other documents I say about the philipino intelligence, repeated in the site, telling the americans about it suggests strongly that they knew about it, so the mossad crew is not my favorite thing.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 13:55:31 GMT -4
no, it is not. when you have certain organizations like freemasonry they usually put their signs on things related to them.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 13, 2006 14:25:53 GMT -4
no, it is not. when you have certain organizations like freemasonry they usually put their signs on things related to them. So now the freemasons did it and adopted as a new freemasonry symbol, the image of the WTC towers burning? The more you try the worse you position gets.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 13, 2006 14:34:19 GMT -4
it is up to the media to show what they want. probably the Mossad did what it should in hope that the media would put it more. Putting it once, to me, can serve the job. Again, maybe this is not true. I can't state this as proof, but to say the Mossad didn't know about it is outlandish. The site I gave states clearly that they knew. Other documents I say about the philipino intelligence, repeated in the site, telling the americans about it suggests strongly that they knew about it, so the mossad crew is not my favorite thing. I am speaking to the specific allegation that Mossad would go through the trouble and expense of setting up a deep undercover operation to obtain video of the first aircraft impact. You have just stated that the media chose to push the video that was obtained into the background in favor of much more graphic images. You must admit that Mossad isn't stupid, that it would be apparent that with the first tower burning , that there would be many others cameras on site at the time of the second impact and that anyone with any modicum of experience in journalism would recognize that the most graphic images would come from those cameras. On your other point, perhaps Mossad did know of the attacks and allowed them to occur. What's your point? That Mossad acts strictly in the selfish interests of Israel? Ok, I'd buy that . However, given that the idea that Mossad would set up a deep cover film crew is shown to be rediculous and that you and others seek to legitimize such a thought it calls into question any other conclusions one such as you might come to. Further compounding the problem with your credibility is your continued adherence to the folding paper money illusion.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 13, 2006 15:06:17 GMT -4
who filmed the planeand why. A french documentary filmmaker who happened to turn his camera toward the sky when he heard an aircraft flying very low and at high speed. Why is this under dispute?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 15:17:08 GMT -4
Isaid no such thing. I was just giving an example.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 15:22:11 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 13, 2006 15:45:19 GMT -4
Actually you mean that this story is the closest to your preconceptions of the jews as international boogymen responsible for everything bad in the world from 9/11 to Germany's failure to win World War I. I'm sorry lionking, but you have lost any credibility with me that you may have once had.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 16:03:11 GMT -4
you have been given facts that are just from sources who are allies with Israel (Fox TV). This site even concludes that no one can know for sure the truth, but this is food for thought. No one claims to know the truth about it, but there are certain facts for God's sake. You don't want me even to think for my self. If you can bring information that you think are objective and contradict this, I'll be happy to read it. But refusing every fact that has been put for you is something uncredible from your part. It shows that you are the one who has his mind set.
let me tell you something about the jews and my view against them. They have benefited a lot from the assassination from the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 14 March 2005. Many people from my own relatives tried to convince me it was Israel who killed him, not Syria. I have undergone harsh quarrels with them because I think the evidence and facts so far prove that it was Syria who did it. Their claims were so outlandish. I kept on telling them that they can't blame Israel for everything, and I am currently impatiently awaiting the final report of the investigator Brammertz on this issue, to prove to the mthey were wrong. So please, don't accuse me of bias against Israel, I have said honestly they were innocent when I thought they were.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 13, 2006 16:35:07 GMT -4
But again, these are all speculations. The site I formerly gave is best to start with, but there was nothing wrong in starting to investigate a rumour, as it might lead to something.
There isn't a problem with investigating a rumour, indeed how can you know if it is true or bunk without doing so. The problem comes when you have been provioded with sufficent information to conclude that the greatest likelihood is that the rumour is bunk, but then won't let go of it and continue to insist that by some way of twisted and convoluted means the rumour could still be true. By your way of thinking, this site could be as Mossad run trap and right now we're tacking you down. Of course it isn't, but then the evidence shows that nieither are the film makers, yet even in your second to last post in here. That doesn't show an open mind as much as a mind determined to find evidence for their own world view regardless of the truth.
All I am saying is to keep an open mind about it, which you simply refuse to do.
This isn't true. Having an open mind doesn't mean believing everything you hear that fits your world view regardless of it's truth, which is what you seem to be doing. It is accepting that something might have merit and the TESTING the claims to see if they do. Once you have tested a claim, there is nothing closed minded about rejecting it if it doesn't stack up. It is onl;y closed minded if you refuse to reject it once its claim has failed the test because it is something that matches your worldview, or refusing to retest something when new evidence appears. The trouble here is not the lackof open mindedness, but the fact some people are so open minded their brain falls out.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 16:48:26 GMT -4
there was no concrete evidence to support that the filmmakers weren't Mosads. If this is evidence for you, it is not for me. Simply because one only has a camera doesn't prove anything of them not being Mossads. Anyhow, it seems people who have came out with that rumor mixed up the news from the last site with the question that Michael moore paused about who filmed the first plane. Your refusal to consider all these info put infront of you for at least to suspect something, proves that you have your mind set. Again, if you have any info that can conclusively let me forget about these suspicions as being true, please don't hesitate to tell them to me. If Mossad is innocent of this, they have many bad acts. Their reputation will not depend on this incident. So, again, either give conclusive proof or just don't sit down replying to me haphazardly. I am not saying that these events are 100% true, but they pose questions. You don't want even to pose questions about them. That was a rumopr I heard, I provided you with a site that has more details. Give me facts that disprove it CONCLUSIVELY.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 13, 2006 17:01:08 GMT -4
there was no concrete evidence to support that the filmmakers weren't Mosads. If this is evidence for you, it is not for me. .... Give me facts that disprove it CONCLUSIVELY.
That's an impossible request. What would be a conclusive proof? Them dening they had anything to do with Mossad? They could be lying...
No, that they ARE Mossad is the claim, it's not up to us to prove they aren't, it's up to the claimants to prove that they ARE. You're burden of proof shifting. That's not how investigation works. You claim you want to investigate the rumor, fine, all and dandy, but in doing so you're jumping to the conclusion the rumor is right and it has to be disproved, that's the wrong way to do it. Say I started a rumor that you were really Bob the notorious triple murder from Kentucy, how would you disprove it? You could claim you were, I'd just say you were lying to keep your cover. You could post pictures of yourself. Fine, I'd just say they weren't you. You could get other who know you to post and declare that you weren't Bob, I'd just say they were you pretending to have friends or family.... You see where this is going? By your standards nothing is disprovable. By your standards I could claim that YOU were involved in the 9/11 attacks and your sole purpose on this board is to cast FUD and suspicions away from yourself and your friends, and by your standards, you could never prove otherwise. This is why the standard of proof is not on the disproving of the claim, but on the proving. Currently all the evidence is pointing towards a pair of young french film makers who got lucky and unless you can provide the evidence to show that this is wrong, we're just going to go in circles. Speculation and what if's don't cut it and until you learn that, you're going to keep on believing anything anyone tells you when it fits your world view, regards of it's truth.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 17:10:29 GMT -4
*sigh*
you have read the site I provided? Sincerely? Have you read that the 5 Israelis were PROVEN BY THE US INTELLIGENCE TO BE SPIES FOR ISRAEL? Have you read the Intelligence commentary that this is classified info?
As for the filmmaker, a conclusive proof would be probably that their names didn't show up as mossads in the US Intelligence investigations.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 13, 2006 17:36:08 GMT -4
I'm with Phantom Wolf on this one. Saying "prove to me that they aren't Mossad agents" is the wrong way to look at this. The idea that they are Mossad agents is the extraordinary claim, and is only paranoid speculation until some evidence for it is presented - beyond the fact that one of the brother's names sounds vaguely jewish.
|
|