Five Dancing Israelis

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Also what good do inactive missiles do? Pretty sure they need to be armed before tbey are effective. And in that case wouldnt explosives in the plane be much more effective?



And what makes you think they were conventional missles?

Could have been special missles. All I know is what I see on the airplane. Why make up hypothesis when you can look at the pictures to see for yourself? Are you calling the pictures fake????


I don't think they are missiles, you suggested it and so now we are trying to figure out why they would be there. You cannot just propose they are missiles because there is something there and it might as well be missiles. Saying they are special missiles no longer makes them missiles, it makes them something else.

For instance, we could say they are hot dogs instead. Not conventional hot dogs but special hot dogs. We can say they are hot dogs because there is literally as much logic that they are hot dogs as there is that they are missiles.

If there is no logical reason for them to be missiles then there is no reason for us to believe they are missiles. Or equally amount of reasons to propose they are hot dogs instead. You understand?

I am not saying whether or not I believe there is anything attached to the under side of that airplane. I am asking the reasons why you believe they are missiles and a remote control pod. I am not trying to talk down to you or make an idiot of you, even though i am using a silly example. We could substitute any word for missiles as long as they are equally illogical.

If we don't have reasons for why they would be missiles then we would need to go through a long list of other objects that they could be in order to figure out what they are, and that would take a long time. So instead we make a short list, and if you want Missiles to be on that list then give some good reasons why.




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by repeatoffender
"Our purpose was to document the event"

The purpose of every person who was out there that day photographing or video-taping the events of 9/11--whether professional or amateur--was to "document the event". So what?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by repeatoffender
"Our purpose was to document the event"

The purpose of every person who was out there that day photographing or video-taping the events of 9/11--whether professional or amateur--was to "document the event". So what?


I think his meaning was that they arrived early with intentions to document the event based on previous knowledge that the event would occur. Semantics.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by repeatoffender
"Our purpose was to document the event"

The purpose of every person who was out there that day photographing or video-taping the events of 9/11--whether professional or amateur--was to "document the event". So what?


I think his meaning was that they arrived early with intentions to document the event based on previous knowledge that the event would occur. Semantics.


That may be his meaning, but I've yet to see any evidence supporting it.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by repeatoffender
"Our purpose was to document the event"

The purpose of every person who was out there that day photographing or video-taping the events of 9/11--whether professional or amateur--was to "document the event". So what?


I think his meaning was that they arrived early with intentions to document the event based on previous knowledge that the event would occur. Semantics.


That may be his meaning, but I've yet to see any evidence supporting it.


And I doubt that we ever will either. Although i don't think it is that big of a stretch of imagination to believe that is the case. We don't necessarily need to believe any of the other theories involved in the subject in order to believe this statement. For instance we know for a fact that the US government/Intelligence agencies knew about the attack before hand. Therefore it is not illogical to assume that other countries intelligence agencies new about the attack as well.

Based on that alone even if every part of 911 is exactly how the government represents it having the 5 guys there charged with the task of of documenting the event does not mean there is any conspiracy other than whether or not the intelligence agencies were doing there job adequately. Or in other words this idea and any conspiracy theories are not mutually exclusive.

Know what I am saying?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Well. I am not a military guru with special clearance so perhaps you should allow for common sense to dictate a) some kind of high explosives were carried aboard the plane to make big boom
upon impact and b)some kind of remote control guidance system was used to steer the plane INTO the buildings.

Does it really matter if they were bombs, missles or molotov cocktails. We need *biggg booom* my son......soooo was it hot dogs?


Anyone who looks at the picture, which was difficult to find, would draw the same conclusions.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Well. I am not a military guru with special clearance so perhaps you should allow for common sense to dictate a) some kind of high explosives were carried aboard the plane to make big boom
upon impact and b)some kind of remote control guidance system was used to steer the plane INTO the buildings.

Does it really matter if they were bombs, missles or molotov cocktails. We need *biggg booom* my son......soooo was it hot dogs?


Anyone who looks at the picture, which was difficult to find, would draw the same conclusions.


Well the size of the boom is subjective obviously, but I wouldn't necessarily classify those particular ones as "big" personally. In this context though it does matter whether they were bombs, missiles, molotov cocktailes, or hotdogs. The reason it matters is that you are proposing that whatever was used was attached to the bottom of this airplane.

And not anyone that looks at the picture would draw this conclusion, it is not self evident. I for one am not drawing this conclusion at all as I don't see any logical reason for it to be there. I think you really missed my point here in that there is a certain way to structure an argument in order for it to be valid. Just saying that you believe something is what it is because you believe there is something there does not make either of those valid. For one we don't know 100% that there is anything attached to the bottom of that plane. Without knowing for absolute certain there is something there we can't even begin to speculate on what that something is with any degree of certainty. But assuming we DO know 100% that something is there then we start to look at the likely hood of what that something is using logic.

So again, why would they attach a missile to the exterior of the plane when that missile would not be useful in its intention? An explosive placed inside the plane itself would not only be more efficient and adequate it would also not draw the attention of conspiracy theorists that are looking for anomolies after the fact?

Why would they put the remote control device on the outside of the plane when the had an entire inside of a plane which would again resolve the problem of nosy conspiracy theorists looking for anomolies. Of course we already have an argument that they didn't think we would see it because the plane is traveling too fast for most cameras eye witnesses. I accept that as an answer but again I don't agree with it as it is illogical in my opinion.

If you want to just say "I have no idea if there is anything attached to the bottom of this plane, nor what those anythings might be but its possible they are a remote control pod and missiles" than we can leave it at that. Otherwise if you want to be serious about this we need to take a deeper look and start using some critical thinking. I don't mean to be demeaning but I don't think you are ready for that level of discussion.

**edit**I know this isn't necessary for me to state but I want to be thorough.I do not know for certain that the image you posted is of one of the planes that hit the towers on 911. I do not know that the image has not been manipulated if it is indeed one of the planes that hit the towers on 911. I am not suggesting that you lied, or that it isn't the plane involved, or that it is manipulated but in order for anything else to be proven this has to be proven first because everything else relies on this premise being correct.
edit on 6/4/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)
edit on 6/4/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


I am simply going by what I see in that photo. To me it looks like some kind of missle.

You keep assuming that the ptb would try to conceal everything when I explained the speed of the plane would almost completly conceal everything by that factor alone.

Now you are starting to question the authenticity of the photo or whether or not those planes actually struck the twin towers. There are multiple videos showing the plane turning upon its lateral axis just prior to impact and if someone does a frame by frame analysis it should be possible to get that specific small frame sequence depicting the belly of the 767 and what it appears to be carrying.

edit on 6/4/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by repeatoffender
"Our purpose was to document the event"

The purpose of every person who was out there that day photographing or video-taping the events of 9/11--whether professional or amateur--was to "document the event". So what?


I think his meaning was that they arrived early with intentions to document the event based on previous knowledge that the event would occur. Semantics.


That may be his meaning, but I've yet to see any evidence supporting it.


And I doubt that we ever will either. Although i don't think it is that big of a stretch of imagination to believe that is the case. We don't necessarily need to believe any of the other theories involved in the subject in order to believe this statement. For instance we know for a fact that the US government/Intelligence agencies knew about the attack before hand. Therefore it is not illogical to assume that other countries intelligence agencies new about the attack as well.

Based on that alone even if every part of 911 is exactly how the government represents it having the 5 guys there charged with the task of of documenting the event does not mean there is any conspiracy other than whether or not the intelligence agencies were doing there job adequately. Or in other words this idea and any conspiracy theories are not mutually exclusive.

Know what I am saying?


So you are leaning on the theory that american intelligence agencies had prior knowledge of everything and they just let stuff happen? How would that explain all the other anamolies documented by truthers and skeptics alike?

Sorry I don't feel like listing them all cause they are too many and someone who comes to the 9-11 board and claims to believe the OS should have already dissected most if not all by then. Only then can they be taken seriously.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I get info from there all the time...but guess what.....the site is biased....it only has OS papers on it.....period.....it does not take counter arguments....so please do not try to say otherwise...is it government run?....heck who knows and could not really care....but it is biased ......it is that simple....just as there are many truth biased sites....but no matter what...it is all information for dissection so it is all valuable.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


I am simply going by what I see in that photo. To me it looks like some kind of missle.

You keep assuming that the ptb would try to conceal everything when I explained the speed of the plane would almost completly conceal everything by that factor alone.

Now you are starting to question the authenticity of the photo or whether or not those planes actually struck the twin towers. There are multiple videos showing the plane turning upon its lateral axis just prior to impact and if someone does a frame by frame analysis it should be possible to get that specific small frame sequence depicting the belly of the 767 and what it appears to be carrying.

edit on 6/4/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


No I am not questioning anything, please read my words. I am stating that I do not know for certain that your picture is what you say it is. I haven't had the time to investigate it. So unless I did know for certain that picture is what you say it is, and is not manipulated then I cannot even begin to seriously speculate on what the picture might show. Anyone that is worth a spit will first recognize that just basing an entire theory off of a picture that they don't know for certain is genuine is fruitless. You need to realize this man, people will eat you alive on this website. For now I am taking for granted it is genuine, because I am not making any argument either way so I don't need to know if it is or not. I am only trying to help you with your argument. I never said though that I doubt if a plane hit the towers, you misunderstood me there.

It is obvious I am talking about things on a different level then you are used to thinking. I cannot help you if you don't understand the point I am trying to make and instead make me out to be some super skeptic. That is not at all what I am doing, I am trying to help you put some "meat on the bones" of your argument, not work against you.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by repeatoffender
"Our purpose was to document the event"

The purpose of every person who was out there that day photographing or video-taping the events of 9/11--whether professional or amateur--was to "document the event". So what?


I think his meaning was that they arrived early with intentions to document the event based on previous knowledge that the event would occur. Semantics.


That may be his meaning, but I've yet to see any evidence supporting it.


...... stuff I said

Know what I am saying?


So you are leaning on the theory that american intelligence agencies had prior knowledge of everything and they just let stuff happen? How would that explain all the other anamolies documented by truthers and skeptics alike?

Sorry I don't feel like listing them all cause they are too many and someone who comes to the 9-11 board and claims to believe the OS should have already dissected most if not all by then. Only then can they be taken seriously.


Yes, although I am not just "leaning" on that theory, it is fact. They have come out and said many times they had been given warnings about this attack prior to it happening but gaps in the lines of communication between the different intelligence agencies and I believe incompetence (possibly malevolence I don't know) caused the information to not be taken seriously or just ignored all together according to them. This can be checked by you and seen as documented.

I don't need to explain any anomolies documented by truthers and skeptics, this is fact and according to the government itself will stand regardless. Neither side has any reason to dispute this, for the truthers heavily rely on the thought that the government knew about it, because they would have to if they were the ones that orchestrated it right? The OS'rs will not dispute this because they believe the official story and well this is the official story.

The realization by me that you didn't already know this information leads me to believe you must be very new to this subject and as such do not comprehend all that is really going on here. As far as me trying to teach you how to formulate an argument if you are interested in trying to really understand what I was talking about let me know in U2U otherwise I will just stop here instead of continuing when we are playing to different sports but trying to agree on who is winning.

Either way good luck.
edit on 6/4/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve

I don't need to explain any anomolies documented by truthers and skeptics, this is fact and according to the government itself will stand regardless. Neither side has any reason to dispute this, for the truthers heavily rely on the thought that the government knew about it, because they would have to if they were the ones that orchestrated it right? The OS'rs will not dispute this because they believe the official story and well this is the official story.


Well those that relly on the gross negligence aspect of government in relation to 9-11 take most of the OS *as is* as fact, so I don't need you or have any realistic demands of you to explain anything. You swallow hook, line and sinker like a true fool.

Someone who has finished questioning the anomalies, and since no honest and satisfactory answers have ever been provided, has reached the inevitable conclusion that indeed it was 100% usa-israel job. I am not new here....been here for several years and it is always black and white. People argue just for sake of arguing and to convince the newbies what they want.

Enjoy your creative writing session. I have better things to do for sure than just answer to thinly veiled sophistry!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Ha, you could not be more off base dude. Its OK, like I said I am on a level you obviously can't comprehend so we can part ways here. You totally didn't recognize my words for what they are. I mean just look right above my first reply to you to see I am not an "OS'er". Oh well critical thinking isn't for everyone I guess. Attacking the people trying to help you is usually a bad idea though, you might want to rethink that strategy.

Good luck to you!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Ha, you could not be more off base dude. Its OK, like I said I am on a level you obviously can't comprehend so we can part ways here. You totally didn't recognize my words for what they are. I mean just look right above my first reply to you to see I am not an "OS'er". Oh well critical thinking isn't for everyone I guess. Attacking the people trying to help you is usually a bad idea though, you might want to rethink that strategy.

Good luck to you!


I don't recall ever asking for your help in the first place. I made a strong hypothesis with evidence and then you raised a bunch of silly loaded hypothetical questions, I answered them as best and as logical as possible, but apparently that is not good enough.
edit on 6/4/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


From the front page...

"But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less."

And no, it doesnt link to very many conspiracy sites....it links to where you can find the media records, legal documents and other actual EVIDENCE as opposed to sending you to Dr Wood's crackpot theories.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You post photos showing us what the bottom of a 767 looks like? There is nothing "strapped" to it, that is the way the underside of every 767 looks.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 1BornPatriot
 


If our military was involved with it, why would we go to war with our partners in it? Welcome to the flat earth society..



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

Can we bury this pod issue already?


[



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by repeatoffender
"Our purpose was to document the event"

The purpose of every person who was out there that day photographing or video-taping the events of 9/11--whether professional or amateur--was to "document the event". So what?


I think his meaning was that they arrived early with intentions to document the event based on previous knowledge that the event would occur. Semantics.


That may be his meaning, but I've yet to see any evidence supporting it.


And I doubt that we ever will either. Although i don't think it is that big of a stretch of imagination to believe that is the case. We don't necessarily need to believe any of the other theories involved in the subject in order to believe this statement. For instance we know for a fact that the US government/Intelligence agencies knew about the attack before hand. Therefore it is not illogical to assume that other countries intelligence agencies new about the attack as well.

Based on that alone even if every part of 911 is exactly how the government represents it having the 5 guys there charged with the task of of documenting the event does not mean there is any conspiracy other than whether or not the intelligence agencies were doing there job adequately. Or in other words this idea and any conspiracy theories are not mutually exclusive.

Know what I am saying?

The thing is that no one ever said they saw those guys out there BEFORE the first plane hit. The report of one eye witness who saw them became distorted and embellished.

The actual statement made by one of the five on a national Israeli TV show ("Our purpose was to document the event") is one that is 1) taken out of context--these people who propagate the notion that the statement is incriminating never replay the full interview from that TV show, they just show that one statement from one of the five. 2) The statement itself, ""our purpose was to document the event", is of words chosen by a translator and may not be so easily misinterpreted in Hebrew.

Do you really think these guys went on national TV and admitted they had foreknowledge of the WTC attacks and had filmed the whole thing? Or is it more likely that when asked why they were out there filming, they said, our reason (or our purpose) for being there filming was to document the event--the same as everyone else who was out filming that day. They NEVER stated they had foreknowledge or that they had begun filming prior to the first plane hitting.

Why propagate such notions without any factual basis? Without ANY evidence? How does that help in the pursuit of truth?
edit on 4-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by repeatoffender
"Our purpose was to document the event"

The purpose of every person who was out there that day photographing or video-taping the events of 9/11--whether professional or amateur--was to "document the event". So what?


I think his meaning was that they arrived early with intentions to document the event based on previous knowledge that the event would occur. Semantics.


That may be his meaning, but I've yet to see any evidence supporting it.


And I doubt that we ever will either. Although i don't think it is that big of a stretch of imagination to believe that is the case. We don't necessarily need to believe any of the other theories involved in the subject in order to believe this statement. For instance we know for a fact that the US government/Intelligence agencies knew about the attack before hand. Therefore it is not illogical to assume that other countries intelligence agencies new about the attack as well.

Based on that alone even if every part of 911 is exactly how the government represents it having the 5 guys there charged with the task of of documenting the event does not mean there is any conspiracy other than whether or not the intelligence agencies were doing there job adequately. Or in other words this idea and any conspiracy theories are not mutually exclusive.

Know what I am saying?


We only got the quotes from you not a comment. I am interested in what you think about my idea of the non mutually exclusive relationship between the 2 though.





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join