The CIA/MOSSAD, AMAN/DIA did 9/11! [BASED ON KNOWN HOAXES]

So this is not true? I just read all of this and realized it was in the hoax forum..I am confused.

Originally posted by thereaintnospoon
Contrary to what you might think, mmiichael, my conclusions about the 9/11 event formed in spite of the internet conspiracies, not because of.
Speaking of "real modern history" a famous philosopher once said: History is written by the winners.

So basically whatever books you are recommending are told from one perspective (textbooks, mainstream history books) only, which means they're incomplete. And to suggest research something that is incomplete is suggesting to not think for youself. Thanks, but I'll pass for now.

And contrary to what you may think, I actually accepted a lot of floating information on 9/11 until I came onto this board a few months ago. Seeing what the sources were and the quality of evidence made me realize how much pseudo-information was being passed off as established fact.

Hard to believe but there are some sources of information that do their best to present balanced information and analysis. There are thousands of independent writers, journalists, historians, who would love a fat book contract and a chance at a Pulitzer Prize nailing down the story of US and or Israeli complicity in 9/11.

One can glibly put down the world of books, articles, journals. They demand time and concentration - a of it. But they are demonstrably the way for people who demand primary sourced analysis and research. Youtube does not supply citations, unfortunately. Website operators do not have a credibility to maintain.

And anyone on a discussion forum can get away with any claim they want.
Only when something comes up that conflicts with the general assumptions of the board is there any dissonance.

My assessment is most people want to hear what reassures them in what they already believe. Everything else is automatically considered a lie.

It takes exceptional character to admit you're wrong, that you've been misled,. May claim it, but it's often not about finding the real Truth. It's about affirmation of a chosen version of the Truth.


Mike





[edit on 1-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Things like the sniffing dogs removed are an out of context manipulation. The WTC had been on a heightened alert a couple weeks before due to a series of anonymous phone calls. This was reduced no Sept 6. So extra dogs and precautions pulled back but everything at normal security levels.

Out of context Manipulation? That sounds like it came out of some hastily prepared talking points memo.
Let's look at just this one little facet...
I personally recall this story being covered, and have retained copies of a couple articles about it and the man I remember being interviewed said the dogs were removed DESPITE an elevated security level THAT weekend. I don't know where you got the 6th from but that wasn't what they were saying right after 9-11 at all. Security provided by Securacom (ala Marvin Bush) was contracted for providing security at both the WTC complex and the Airports in question literally to the day of 9-11, when John O'Neil was to take over at the WTC, 9-11 was his third day on the job and by sheer cooincidence of course he was the top most expert in the US on Alqueda who's investigations had been stonewalled by the Bush Administration. What are the odds of that alone? Jerome Hauer, who got him that job and pushed him through to start working there, would later identify his body personally.
As to the security at the airports, one of those jokers went around cutting up the taped conversations between pilots and ATC from that morning with a pair of scissors and depositing them into seperate trashcans (seperate trashcans for crying out loud) despite very specific orders to retain any and all records... and there were even a few scant reports that surfaced claiming the same bunch of 'security' guys were at the Federal Building in OKC. That's some security, and that's just one little facet.

Look folks, we're not selling anything, we're not out to make a buck or get attention. I knew the moment the word 'truth' started being spun to some sort of negative connotation (i.e. 'truther') that something was amiss here.

Edit:

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
So this is not true? I just read all of this and realized it was in the hoax forum..I am confused.

According to Snopes.com and Crakeur apparently, there's no need to look into any of this. Thanks for replying with that though mblahnikluver, now maybe some of the ATS Higher Ups will see the dangers inherent in creating this 'Hoax Forum' and putting threads in there with that label
Odigo confirmed those prior warnings btw, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody knows for sure how many jewish people were killed in the WTC, except snopes I guess.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by twitchy]

Originally posted by twitchy
the man I remember being interviewed said the dogs were removed DESPITE an elevated security level THAT weekend. I don't know where you got the 6th from but that wasn't what they were saying right after 9-11 at all. Security provided by Securacom (ala Marvin Bush) was contracted for providing security at both the WTC complex and the Airports in question literally to the day of 9-11, when John O'Neil was to take over at the WTC, 9-11 was his third day on the job and by sheer cooincidence of course he was the top most expert in the US on Alqueda who's investigations had been stonewalled by the Bush Administration. What are the odds of that alone? Jerome Hauer, who got him that job and pushed him through to start working there, would later identify his body personally.

As to the security at the airports, one of those jokers went around cutting up the taped conversations between pilots and ATC from that morning with a pair of scissors and depositing them into seperate trashcans (seperate trashcans for crying out loud) despite very specific orders to retain any and all records... and there were even a few scant reports that surfaced claiming the same bunch of 'security' guys were at the Federal Building in OKC. That's some security, and that's just one little facet.

The dog thing I attach no importance to. The claim is that explosives were in WTC which would take months of prep time. So how would dogs coming and going a few days before make a difference. And they've been shown to be unreliable. How about a theory they were replaced by bad sniffers?

I've always believed the Bush admin was giving Al Qaida a free pass, knowing their tolerance of Saudi royals shenanigans. The Saudis playing both sides of the equation with Bush & co has always been a prime issue. I can provide you the names and authors of 11 books tracking nefarious Saudi funding that have been removed from shelves in the last decade.

You must know Marvin Bush was long gone from the Securacom board well before 9/11.

Pretty serious stuff at the end here, if true. I'm prepared to believe it. But is is documented properly or just more hearsay and allegation? With so many claims being proven false, testimony needs to be backed up with evidence. No videos please.

And I'm not totally clear if it is bonafide, what they might have been concealing.

Keep us posted.


Mike


[edit on 1-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

And contrary to what you may think, I actually accepted a lot of floating information on 9/11 until I came onto this board a few months ago. Seeing what the sources were and the quality of evidence made me realize how much pseudo-information was being passed off as established fact.

Hard to believe but there are some sources of information that do their best to present balanced information and analysis. There are thousands of independent writers, journalists, historians, who would love a fat book contract and a chance at a Pulitzer Prize nailing down the story of US and or Israeli complicity in 9/11.

One can glibly put down the world of books, articles, journals. They demand time and concentration - a of it. But they are demonstrably the way for people who demand primary sourced analysis and research. Youtube does not supply citations, unfortunately. Website operators do not have a credibility to maintain.

And anyone on a discussion forum can get away with any claim they want.
Only when something comes up that conflicts with the general assumptions of the board is there any dissonance.

My assessment is most people want to hear what reassures them in what they already believe. Everything else is automatically considered a lie.

It takes exceptional character to admit you're wrong, that you've been misled,. May claim it, but it's often not about finding the real Truth. It's about affirmation of a chosen version of the Truth.


Mike

[edit on 1-7-2009 by mmiichael]

And who decides that books, journals, and articles is a primary source or even contains primary sources? Just because there's a general consensus that says so? Well I respectfully disagree. Youtube may not provide citations, but neither does the mainstream media. Website operators may not have to maintain their credibility, but neither does the mainstream media. They have no obligation to tell us the truth, whatsoever.
Your assessment about that most people need to hear what they already believe is just about the same opionion I have. However, 99% of us were fed the "official" version on what happened. This is not exclusive to 9/11, as a matter of fact, this happens all the time. Therefore, people seeking an alternative explanation have already come to the conclusion that they have been lied to and were mislead, they have already admitted they were wrong.
And yes, human beings seek that which they can understand best, so naturally there's gonna be different distortions of the truth. That does not mean that you can critisize them or attack their character for beliving different than you. If you noticed, I have never claimed that what you believe is wrong. And perhaps I was wrong to judge you and label you a gov. informant or whatever, but when you come out and claim you are more right than others, just because you say so, makes you look like someone who is here only divide and confuse and lead people further away from the truth than they already are.

I was watching a live feed of this when it happened. When the tower started falling if you looked close you could see flashes of light every so many floors as the top fell. I have a relative that was present at the site when it happened and she said she heard explosions BEFORE the plane hit. What i think happened is the govt officials found out about the plot, planted bombs inside of the WTC buildings because they knew that the planes could likely not bring them down with just fires.

Originally posted by thereaintnospoon

And who decides that books, journals, and articles is a primary source or even contains primary sources? Just because there's a general consensus that says so? Well I respectfully disagree. Youtube may not provide citations, but neither does the mainstream media. Website operators may not have to maintain their credibility, but neither does the mainstream media. They have no obligation to tell us the truth, whatsoever.
Your assessment about that most people need to hear what they already believe is just about the same opionion I have. However, 99% of us were fed the "official" version on what happened. This is not exclusive to 9/11, as a matter of fact, this happens all the time. Therefore, people seeking an alternative explanation have already come to the conclusion that they have been lied to and were mislead, they have already admitted they were wrong.
And yes, human beings seek that which they can understand best, so naturally there's gonna be different distortions of the truth. That does not mean that you can critisize them or attack their character for beliving different than you. If you noticed, I have never claimed that what you believe is wrong. And perhaps I was wrong to judge you and label you a gov. informant or whatever, but when you come out and claim you are more right than others, just because you say so, makes you look like someone who is here only divide and confuse and lead people further away from the truth than they already are.

Primary source means when ever possible, someone went in the field, spoke to witnesses, read original documents, looked at concrete evidence, etc. That's research.

What is called investigoogling is not.

I don't know exactly what mainstream media is. Haven't watched television in over a decade. But know a lot of people who are journalists mainly for independent media and now more online. They're better at sorting out what's BS from experience and know what's out there. When in doubt I trust their judgement.

I don't know what's wrong or right in a lot of cases. But have learned to differentiate better what is debatable and what is utter bunk in the areas I talk about online. You develop an eye for internal inconsistencies, dubious sources, agenda driven testimony.

When you've seen a lot of stories start to transform into mythologies you recognize a pattern. Advocates think they're doing investigation, the same disinformation gets exaggerated and amplified.

Meanwhile the real bad guys laugh their heads off, as the trail gets colder, while a couple million hobbyist examine Youtube videos looking for new signs. Reminiscent of the replaying of all those fuzzy UFO videos.

That's me tonight. More cynical than usual. Coming home late after a holiday here - Canada Day. Good time, but stuck for over an hour when my friend's electronic device wouldn't open the doors to his brand new vehicle. Luckily kept the passenger window open a couple inches to get out the new upholstery smell, and managed to press the buttons with a stick. Would you believe no manual locks on the damned thing.

Hooray for low tech.

Thanks for being so reasonable in tolerating my bad attitude.


Mike


[edit on 2-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael


Thanks for being so reasonable in tolerating my bad attitude.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Well it wouldnt be much of a discussion if we didnt appreciate and accept each others attitude...even if it's bad...which I didnt really consider your attitude to be. No need to apologize if you're expressing what you're feeling
Perhaps one day, we will all find truth, not just our version or someone elses, but the ability to have true knowing. I wish you, all of you, luck in your journey of finding the truth. Discussions like this are good for us...literally. How can we know truth if we are never lied to? How can we accomplish clarity without ever being on the other end of deception?

A bad attitude is one thing...

Spending your life trying to defend and justify the U.S. government's patently ridiculous story that '19 Arabs outsmarted the U.S. military' is quite another...

How gullible can people be?

BTW, there's nothing in the OP's original post that justifies this thread being labeled a 'hoax.'





[edit on 2-7-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Although it might be popular in some circles to believe the US and Israel planned and executed 9/11, at least two years before, disparate nations like Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel were tracking a plot by Arab terrorists to attack key US targets using hijacked planes. They gave the US their pieces of the puzzle.

Would anyone actually suggest this foreknowledge implicates the intelligence agencies in all these countries?

Mike

www.historycommons.org...

Foreign Government Warnings of Planes as Weapons

Numerous foreign governments warned the US that it was likely to be attacked by airplanes used as weapons. In 1999, the British warned that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways, possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] In early August 2001, Britain gave a categorical warning that the US should expect multiple airline hijackings. This warning was passed on to Bush a short time later. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

In June 2001, Germany warned that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.” [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01, Fox News, 5/17/02]

In August, Russian President Putin warned the US that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

In late July 2001, “Egyptian intelligence [learned] … from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02] This closely matches the details of the actual 9/11 plot, with its four pilots who trained on Cessnas. Around the end of August, Egyptian intelligence followed up with a warning that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02]

Jordan passed on the message that a major attack, code named the “Big Wedding,” was planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used.[International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] “Big Wedding” was in fact al-Qaeda’s secret code name for the 9/11 attacks. [Chicago Tribune, 9/5/02]

Israel went even further, warning in mid-August 2001 that between 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the US and were planning an imminent, “major assault on the United States.” They said it was likely to be on a “large scale target” (the CIA has denied this warning). [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Fox News, 5/17/02]

On August 23, Israel even gave the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US who were about to stage an attack. It’s not known if these were the exact same 19 hijackers as in the 9/11 attack, but at least four of the names on the list were the same: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02] Apparently Israeli agents had been monitoring the hijackers inside the US for months. For instance, beginning in December 2000, agents lived a few blocks from Marwan Alshehhi and Mohamed Atta, and observed them “around the clock.” [Salon, 5/7/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Although it might be popular in some circles to believe the US and Israel planned and executed 9/11, at least two years before, disparate nations like Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel were tracking a plot by Arab terrorists to attack key US targets using hijacked planes. They gave the US their pieces of the puzzle.

Would anyone actually suggest this foreknowledge implicates the intelligence agencies in all these countries?

Mike

Yeah but that's the cover story the media has been feeding us for years now. Their theory is just not very credible. It lacks any logical reasoning or explanation for what really happened.

Originally posted by thereaintnospoon

Originally posted by mmiichael
Although it might be popular in some circles to believe the US and Israel planned and executed 9/11, at least two years before, disparate nations like Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel were tracking a plot by Arab terrorists to attack key US targets using hijacked planes. They gave the US their pieces of the puzzle.

Would anyone actually suggest this foreknowledge implicates the intelligence agencies in all these countries?

Mike

Yeah but that's the cover story the media has been feeding us for years now. Their theory is just not very credible. It lacks any logical reasoning or explanation for what really happened.

While governments and media lie all the time, from dozens of countries we have consistent reporting of Islamic Extremists planning and executing a major attack on the US. There is an extended trail and overwhelming amounts of evidence and history of other events, including an attempt to topple a WTC building in 1993 using bombs.

There is a strong anti-American and anti-Israel contingency that we see on the Net. They have been making claims that those two countries were behind 9/11.

In nearly 8 years since the event people have come up with anecdotes and questionable reports, much misinformation, things isolated out of context, and a lot of dot connecting lacking validated connections. Until someone delivers an equally detailed and substantiated reporting of an alternative scenario, with the same level of documentation, hard evidence, names, all we have is a lot of speculation and allegations.

It comes down pretty much to whether medias, independent writers and journalists, whole international governments, including those housing and funding extremists, are spreading a consistent disinformation scenario or conspiracists who inhabit the Internet are making unsubstantiated claims.

Many will remain in perpetual denial refusing to believe the US has enemies that successfully attacked it. It conflicts with their fixed view of the world. The Internet supplies support groups for these like-minded people. But the onus is on them to demonstrate a radically different chain of events occurred from what reliable world sources have shown.


Mike



[edit on 4-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Again, it's more of the same we have heard over and over and over again.
An event happens (a manufactured event), it's followed by a reaction (our reaction, the people being observed/controlled) and a solution or conclusion or whatever you want to call it is given.
9/11 happened... it appears as if the "islamist extremist" did it, since they are already fed up with foreign powers, mainly US and Israel, occupying their land and they "hate us because we are free", and they are just evil and all the evidence points to them(use whatever reason you want to) and the solution is utltimately war.
Yes, the US has always had enemies. Always. There were people even against the creation of the US. So to start with we've had enemies. But what if those enemies took a different approach to destroy us? What if they finally learned from their prior mistakes and figured out a better method? What if those enemies started becoming and acting like friends? And rather than destroy us by force, they destroy us by stealth? What if these same people started to just create enemies so they can further elude us and shift the "blame" away from themselves to whoever the choose to?
That's the beauty of thinking for your self. It doesnt take internet conspiracy forums and websites to not believe whatever someone else wants you to believe. Sure what you believe could be true, and by all means is true for you, but you cannot discount the fact that what's true for you is not necessarily true for someone else. As a matter of fact, it could be the exact opposite. So, who's right/wrong?

Originally posted by thereaintnospoon
That's the beauty of thinking for your self. It doesnt take internet conspiracy forums and websites to not believe whatever someone else wants you to believe. Sure what you believe could be true, and by all means is true for you, but you cannot discount the fact that what's true for you is not necessarily true for someone else. As a matter of fact, it could be the exact opposite. So, who's right/wrong?

Keeping an open mind to interpretations and values is healthy. But you run into serious problems when you have to interface with other people. It is even worse when they represent the interests of others.

Let's say the prominent Ayatollahs in Iran truly believe the 12th Imam coming forth is imminent. They may feel that a major war with the Christian West, the Jews in Israel, the Sunni component of the region is necessary and inevitable. Even if it means the death of tens of millions in their own country.

Are we supposed to apply our liberal educations and be accepting of their right to have a different viewpoint?


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael

Are we supposed to apply our liberal educations and be accepting of their right to have a different viewpoint?


Mike

If not, then the struggle for peace is already lost.

Originally posted by thereaintnospoon

Originally posted by mmiichael

Are we supposed to apply our liberal educations and be accepting of their right to have a different viewpoint?


Mike

If not, then the struggle for peace is already lost.

How about the full context:

"Let's say the prominent Ayatollahs in Iran truly believe the 12th Imam coming forth is imminent. They may feel that a major war with the Christian West, the Jews in Israel, the Sunni component of the region is necessary and inevitable. Even if it means the death of tens of millions in their own country.

Are we supposed to apply our liberal educations and be accepting of their right to have a different viewpoint?"


Good luck with your tolerance.


M

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by TheAnswers

It seems obvious and clear to most that the WTC was brought down by explosives.

Actually the opposite is the case. This possibility has been explored by many experts from many countries.

Few understand is how invasive preparing a building for demolition really is.
With steel structures the size of the WTC building the support and locations would require massive modifications. Concrete would need to be penetrated, aluminum coverings removed. Then the steel cut to the degree where it would break in the manner desired.

The extent of this work would be so extensive it would be impossible not to notice the building being virtually torn apart. Tens of thousands of feet of detonating cord would need installation. Everything would also have to be reassembled and repainted without notice. Essentially whole sections of the buildings would need to be out of operation for a week at a time, minimum.

THIS IS UNTRUE.

As a road accident haas left me typing with a shattered left arm, I can only provide a short answer.

In 1990, I visited the WTC. The elevator that I used took a long time to arrive at the top. IAs I stood by the doors, I noticed that there was a small 1/2 inch gap or so between the elevator doors and the floor. Fascinated, I crouched down and was able to see down a few storeys of the elevator shaft. Maybe it was only the case with this particular shaft, but the trusses were clearly exposed in that shaft.

Further, according the Les Robertson, the structural engineer, he asked the Japanese architect how closely did he want the supporting trusses. He replied that when he stretched out his armns, he always wanted to be able to touch two at a time. Les further added, "and he was a small man". Because of this forest of 43 trusses, Les put them in the core, (they only needed 12 trusses to keep the building up) ansd as a result, the only things that hecouold put there were the elevator tshafts and the stairs. Hence the elevator shafts would have tgiven perfect access for the Turner Corporation employees to plant explosives.

Originally posted by TheAnswers

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by TheAnswers

It seems obvious and clear to most that the WTC was brought down by explosives.

Actually the opposite is the case. This possibility has been explored by many experts from many countries.

Few understand is how invasive preparing a building for demolition really is.
With steel structures the size of the WTC building the support and locations would require massive modifications. Concrete would need to be penetrated, aluminum coverings removed. Then the steel cut to the degree where it would break in the manner desired.

The extent of this work would be so extensive it would be impossible not to notice the building being virtually torn apart. Tens of thousands of feet of detonating cord would need installation. Everything would also have to be reassembled and repainted without notice. Essentially whole sections of the buildings would need to be out of operation for a week at a time, minimum.

THIS IS UNTRUE.
I noticed that there was a small 1/2 inch gap or so between the elevator doors and the floor. Fascinated, I crouched down and was able to see down a few storeys of the elevator shaft. Maybe it was only the case with this particular shaft, but the trusses were clearly exposed in that shaft.

The unusual central support design is well known. I was referring to the steel frame columns within the outside walls. They were a much higher grade steel and much heavier. They were covered in aluminum cladding and buried inside the concrete between the exterior walls.

Also, though people like Steve Jones are trying to show traces of thermite in the rubble, something demonstrably inadequate given it's low energy yield, no traces of large scale explosives were found and no physical evidence. But plenty of speculation and disinformation on the subject.


Mike







[edit on 7-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by thereaintnospoon
my conclusions about the 9/11 event formed in spite of the internet conspiracies, not because of.

Speaking of "real modern history" a famous philosopher once said: History is written by the winners.

So basically whatever books you are recommending are told from one perspective (textbooks, mainstream history books) only, which means they're incomplete. And to suggest research something that is incomplete is suggesting to not think for youself. Thanks, but I'll pass for now.

One more thing...you agree with the fact that sure, several nations anticipated an "attack" somewhere in the US, but wheres the evidence that people of those nations were forwarned? Israelis/jews were warned HOURS before the event.

If we take the stance that we can never truly know the real story behind events then what's the point of discussing anything? We do our best with the information available and try to put together a logical scenario that fits the pieces of the puzzle we have. And we're living in an a time where more information from more sources is available than ever before.

We have ascertained that intelligence agencies from the Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, Germany, etc were supplying information on a major attack to the US.

Part of their job of tracking terrorist internationally, Mossad was watching some of the hijackers and they told US intelligence about it. We don't know how detailed and specific any of their knowledge was and if any individuals knew exact times and other specifics. Possibly only at the last minute.

Attempts are made to implicate Israel in 9/11 claiming Israelis in New York were told there was going to be an attack on the day. There is nothing to verify this and evidence to the contrary. And let's get real, why would Israel openly provide any depth intelligence if they wanted their knowledge to be a secret?

But those who want to conclude some Israelis knew exactly what was coming down the pike and withheld the information will continue to believe it.
Some prefer dot connecting conspiracy theories to actual facts.


Mike


[edit on 7-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Attempts are made to implicate Israel in 9/11 claiming Israelis in New York were told there was going to be an attack on the day. There is nothing to verify this and evidence to the contrary.

How ridiculous. You conveniently forget about the five dancing Israelis who were arrested on 9/11 driving a van packed with "tons of explosives", then held for months and given dozens of polygraph tests by the FBI before being quietly released to appear on Israeli TV, where they claimed that they were only sent to "document the event." Their own families were quoted in Israeli press accounts as saying that they were charged with "plotting to blow up" the George Washington bridge. New Jersey police detectives who arrested the dancing Israelis at Liberty State Park said they had advance knowledge of the attacks, including evidence that directly linked them to the bombing plot.


Arutz Sheva News Service -- IsraelNationalNews.com 10-26-01:

Originally posted by mmiichael
But those who want to conclude some Israelis knew exactly what was coming down the pike and withheld the information will continue to believe it.

Some prefer dot connecting conspiracy theories to actual facts.

I guess you know more than the FBI and police detectives who arrested the dancing Israelis. Sorry, but YOU'RE the one who flagrantly and consistently misrepresents the facts.



[edit on 9-7-2009 by GoldenFleece]