|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 12, 2006 13:55:54 GMT -4
You sir, are no better in your search for Jewish conspirators under every bed!LOL. Ya think? I mean what I said and I said what I mean. LOL I should note that my pointing out that problems with faking a video of the first aircraft also apply to creating a $20 bill that can be folded into a depiction of the attacks. What possible value would there be in having a currency designer being given the task to produce such a thing several years ahead of the event it is supposed to depict? While one may be able to come up with a convoluted reason for prodicing a high quality fake video of the aircraft impact, one really must stand on one's head and perform moves that would certainly dislocate something in order to come up with a reason for producing a currency note depicting the attacks. Yes, lionking, that is sarcasm. The idea that folding paper money means anything at all is laughable, truly laughable. That you cannot see that says much about your ability to process information. In short you show yourself to be unable to process information objectively, and that when you attempt to do so you have prejudices that further taint any conclusions you reach.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 12, 2006 14:01:43 GMT -4
In short you show yourself to be unable to process information objectively, and that when you attempt to do so you have prejudices that further taint any conclusions you reach. Nail! Head! Hammer Hit!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 12, 2006 15:21:23 GMT -4
don't get block-minded Jason, please. You are more open-minded than that. You are not a kid to take things so narrowly. You are an adult and you know that people have affiliations to others of their like. I am not saying it is hundred percent that he is a Mossad agent if he is jew, but this for obvious reasons, increase the possibility. Well, look at it from the other direction. If someone were to come forward with a videotape of Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush planning the 9/11 attacks and my first question about that person was "is he an Arab?" And I then went on to explain that if he is an Arab then that makes it more probable that he's an agent of Al Qaeda and that the tape is therefore a fake, would you consider my comments to be prejudicial against Arabs?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 12, 2006 15:38:56 GMT -4
(I am answering you and jaydeehess with you now). not at all, as it is known that Al Qaeda is against America, and many Arabs who are fanatic support it. The most natural thing that you would do is start searching for the known enemies of the state. That wouldn't be prejudicial from you at all. You would be thinking practically.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 12, 2006 15:43:05 GMT -4
Mossad didn't manufacture the video. It would just have known about the planes and came to videotape the attack so they can have better visual impacts on nations . something like : look at terrorism...we are gonna fight terror.."
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 12, 2006 15:44:38 GMT -4
No. Your reply shows that you are unable to keep an open mind about anything. You just refuse even possibilities of things, which is outward unobjectivity.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 12, 2006 17:21:13 GMT -4
his name seems jew
Firstly, if his family is indeed Catholic, which would not be surprising (remember that 90% of France is RC) then a Biblical name is not surprising at all. There are plenty of Davids, Peters, Joshuas, Adams, Rebeckas, Rachels, and Johns about the western world.His name is likely taken from Gideon, which though not as common as the above, is still relatively common. The surname, and you could have checked this yourself, is old french, and even hasd a french coat of arms associated with it. There is zero evidence to him being Jewish and a lot of evidence to his being RC, though without actually asking him there is no proof one way or the other. That a person born in Paris and then who moved to NY would be an agent to Mossad is however one of the more perposterous things I have heard.
There is an very simply explaination. Jules (Gedeon was back at the Firehouse) happened to be in the right spot at the right time, heard the plane and just got the camera up to film it as it hit. Sure it's a fluke, but they happen. Heck, we just had a murder here. The killer(s) cut off the guy's hands and dumped him in the ocean. Last night the Police arrested someone for it. How? Because of a few coincidences that lead to the identity of the victim, and then the killer. Again I'm getting the feeling that you'd be suspicious regardsless, just like the groups that claim that it's suspicious that the First Plane was filmed, but the it's also suspicious because the Pentagon plane wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 12, 2006 17:30:30 GMT -4
The most natural thing that you would do is start searching for the known enemies of the state.
Captain Renault: “Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.”
More crimes are solved by objectively looking at the evidence and building the strongest theory consistent with that evidence.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 12, 2006 18:14:18 GMT -4
More crimes are solved by objectively looking at the evidence and building the strongest theory consistent with that evidence.
Exactly, you determine if the evidence really is faked before looking for the fakers, you don't assume it is fake and then start attempting to find links to groups you want to have done it. In the case of the "Bush plans 911" video idea, why decide to blame Al Quaeda first anyway? Even if the person that revealed it is an Arab, perhaps he's also a democrat, or simply supports Sft911 or one of the other 911CT groups.
This is the thing, even by a remote change, Jules and his brother were Jewish, that still don't mean anything, you'd still have to establish that they had connections to Mossad or even Israel before you can claim anything else, you can't just jump from "Jew" to "Mossad", and you certainly can jump from "sounds Jewish" to "Mossad".
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 12, 2006 18:24:19 GMT -4
Mossad didn't manufacture the video. It would just have known about the planes and came to videotape the attack so they can have better visual impacts on nations . something like : look at terrorism...we are gonna fight terror.." Ok I get your point but this is still really a non-starter for a reason to position two videographers in NYC. There were two planes and after the first one hit every news organization within a 1/2 hour drive had their people on the spot as the second plane hit. There is no lack of video coverage of the second plane and ONE video of that first plane with the camera far from being positioned in the perfect spot. The camera does not have a large zoom capacity and thus even if it is zoomed all the way in the plane is still small in the frame. Given the huge amount of video, from several angles and various lens lengths for the second impact it is THOSE videos that we see over and over again. No need whatsoever for a clandestine Mossad crew disguised as Roman Catholic Frenchmen to capture the first impact. Furthermore ,as pointed out by Phantomwolf, only one of them was at the scene, the other was at the firehouse. In your senario you have Mossad going through the time and expense of setting up a deep cover for two videographers as a french team in NYC doing a story on the NYFD in order to capture video of the aircraft impacts. But the crew is really superfluous to capturing the second impact since by that time there would obviously be dozens of professional cameras set up around the WTC. Thus your only exclusive is the video of the first impact which is a small piece of the frame in that video and whose very existance is swamped by the multitude of much better videos (in a graphic horror sense) of the second impact. There is still NO NEED for a Mossad film crew. This is all obvious before you even need to examine the origins of the crew members themselves yet your first instinct was to start at that point and look for any evidence of a Jewish background. Well my second name is David yet as far back as my family has been researched on both my Serbian and Scottish heritages ( several generations on both sides, the Scot side going back to the early 1800's) there has never been a member of my family that was Jewish. All marriages were registered in Christian churchs, all baptisms were also Christian but by your measure the fact that my second name is David would be evidence that I may be Jewish would it not? (despite my first and last names having no connection to either the Bible or the Jewish faith). Again I point out the glaring prejudices that colour your evry conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 12, 2006 18:36:51 GMT -4
No. Your reply shows that you are unable to keep an open mind about anything. You just refuse even possibilities of things, which is outward unobjectivity. On the contrary I at least can see that certain trains of thought are not worthy of pursuit. An example of which is the folding paper money. It simply must be pure coincidence that the shapes that can be brought out by folding the money resemble the burning towers. It is truly amazing that humans have the ability to see patterns of recognizable objects in other media and contexts. This is why we see faces in melted cheese sandwiches or clouds that look like ducks or the visage of Satan in smoke clouds. However, just as there is no significance whatsoever to melted cheese taking on a pattern that resembles the face of what 16th century painters showed us as the face of Jesus, there is no significance whatsoever in the fact that one can fold paper money and obtain a small scene that superficially resembles the burning WTC towers. This I understood as soon as I was forced to think about it the first time a CT brought the issue up. Why can't you? Could it be that you lack the ability to think critically? That would be my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 12, 2006 19:33:15 GMT -4
Those who think there's some deep significance to the $20 fold are of course going to accuse those who rightly believe it is a simple coincidence of not being 'open minded', and argue that point forever no matter what.
Unless one believes there's no such thing as paranoid people who see importance in the most mundane things, that's pretty much how they operate.
According to them, we just don't 'get' it. It's not even worth it.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 5:31:05 GMT -4
*sigh* I wonder why you get too defensive on speculations. There might be still a possibility that he ws a non-jew and still works for the Mossad, but this is not the key issue : who filmed the planeand why. the key issue is the knowledge of the Israeli Mossad about these groups ans warning the American about them. Israel is not known for not following on their enemies. They live on spy work. The Mossad agent was arumour I heard, and it might be true. Indeed, the frensh crew, if they work for Mossad, should come up with a satisfactory story (read the book: By the Way Of Deception , written by a Mossad agent and see what they do). We were filming somehting and we could catch it. The people and all cameras would be filming he tower, when the second plane would hit. 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.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 13, 2006 12:44:20 GMT -4
*sigh* I wonder why you get too defensive on speculations. There might be still a possibility that he ws a non-jew and still works for the Mossad, but this is not the key issue : who filmed the planeand why. the key issue is the knowledge of the Israeli Mossad about these groups ans warning the American about them. Israel is not known for not following on their enemies. They live on spy work. The Mossad agent was arumour I heard, and it might be true. Indeed, the frensh crew, if they work for Mossad, should come up with a satisfactory story (read the book: By the Way Of Deception , written by a Mossad agent and see what they do). We were filming somehting and we could catch it. The people and all cameras would be filming he tower, when the second plane would hit. 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. I have absolutely no doubt that Mossad undertakes many clandestine operations around the world. I am under no illusion that Mossad is above espionage. However there is most certainly no need for Mossad to go through the time and expense of a deep cover operation to obtain a video of the first plane hitting the north tower,,, NONE!!!! It is certainly not speculation that once the first plane hit that there would , in short order, be dozens of cameras pointed at the WTC towers and therefore would capture the second hit. Those same cameras would be filming the burning north tower(that is why they would be there when the second plane comes in) and thousands of eyewitnesses would be available to state that a large jet plane had flown low over Manhattan and dozens, maybe even hundreds, would have witnessed the impact. Once you see that this is so then there is no need at all to look for any link the videographers may have that suggests , however tenuously, a connection to Israel. You have utterly failed to show any reason why such an operation would be required. Mossad does not commonly under take operations for which there can be derived absolutely no discernible benefit. So, tell us again why it is that you are on this Jew-hunt? I note that you have not bothered to address the original issue of folding paper money again. Since this is the subject of this thread I reiterate:
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 13:07:26 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.
it might be coincidence, but doesn't have to be. I said this before. There is nothing unusual of politicians putting their signs on things. Freemasons at NASA put their signs in Apollo. I read also that the design of ballistic missiles from the inside had some freemasonic signs. We can compare this to a dollar sign folded, but it can be coincidence just as the 9-1-1 lottery winning numbers on September 11 the second year the attacks occured. All I am saying is to keep an open mind about it, which you simply refuse to do.
|
|