Five Dancing Israelis

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


But perhaps you can tell me why the perps would get the bbc to read out a "script"? Whether implicated or not? Simon can't, and I imagine this is going to be one of the questions that you weirdly seem unwilling to answer...

Turns out I was right. Again.

Fascinating that you're both so certain. Certain of your conspiracy, certain someone needs to get hanged, certain that there's probably Joos involved somewhere...

and yet neither of you can answer this.

What if it comes up in court when you're trying to get people killed?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by waypastvne

 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have often thought about starting a thread titled Victims of the Witch Hunt, and list all the names of people who have been harassed by the truth movement. People who have done absolutely nothing wrong. But I not sure I want to drag their names out into the public to be harassed again.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

I call you a Witch Hunter because you are on a Witch Hunt. You make accusations of people being involved in mass murder. When we ask you for evidence you avoid the question. I asked you the question:

On what charges ?

Still no answer. The Witch Hunters can't even prove the Israelis ever even danced, much less involvement in mass murder.

Are you a skin head ? Is that a wig you'r wearing in your avatar ?

Answer the question; Witch Hunt against whom? Jews?

Is that what you are afraid to say? Is this why you now call me a "skinhead" and why you post videos about Hitler on 9/11 threads?

Because I think 9/11 is an inside job you call me a "Witch Hunter" and a "skin head".

You are weak and I saw you ludicrous airliner air as a sabot projectile video.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Answer the question;

Why should I you don't answer any questions anyone ask you, You are unable to back up any of your accusations with any evidence. You can't even think up a crime the Israelis could be charged with.


You called me a Zionist I called you skin head.

You called me an OSer I called you a witch hunter.

I don't think you'r a skin head, but I know for a fact you'r a witch hunter. You wanting to hang the dancers without even naming the crime they committed, kinda proves it

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Answer the question;

Why should I you don't answer any questions anyone ask you, You are unable to back up any of your accusations with any evidence. You can't even think up a crime the Israelis could be charged with.


You called me a Zionist I called you skin head.

You called me an OSer I called you a witch hunter.

I don't think you'r a skin head, but I know for a fact you'r a witch hunter. You wanting to hang the dancers without even naming the crime they committed, kinda proves it

OSer means Official Story acceptors and it does not constitute a personal insult. You, however, accused me of being of a racist type and associated a discussion of 5 Israelis who horrifically celebrated the deaths of Americans as it was happening while "documenting" the event.

These forward observers from a foreign state notorious for criminal and terroristic activities are worthy of comment and you associate the whole thread to a distasteful video of a dancing Hitler.

What are you insinuating?

Is this why you call truth seekers "witch hunters" because you pathologically draw correlations between Czarist pogroms and pales with the possible consequences of Israel being discovered to have been involved in 9/11?

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Have you figured out what crime you want to charge the dancers with yet ?

You got to do that before you hang'em Witch Hunter.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

Have you figured out what crime you want to charge the dancers with yet ?

You got to do that before you hang'em Witch Hunter.

Surely as an Israeli defender you would want your Dancing Israelis to be questioned and tried before you have them hanged?

You contradict yourself with demanding hangings

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


But perhaps you can tell me why the perps would get the bbc to read out a "script"? Whether implicated or not? Simon can't, and I imagine this is going to be one of the questions that you weirdly seem unwilling to answer...

Turns out I was right. Again.

Fascinating that you're both so certain. Certain of your conspiracy, certain someone needs to get hanged, certain that there's probably Joos involved somewhere...

and yet neither of you can answer this.

What if it comes up in court when you're trying to get people killed?

How does our inability to telepathically know why this screw-up happened make any difference? Does that mean it didn't happen?

Do I need a motive to convict Jeffrey Dahmer for eating people?

reply to post by SimontheMagus

i love playing the what time did you hear about 9-11 game .have put thousands away thinking about that one even dr who would have been stumped lol

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


How does our inability to telepathically know why this screw-up happened make any difference? Does that mean it didn't happen?

But I'm not asking you to know why the screw up happened. This should be obvious. I'm asking you why you think they would bother to get a foreign news agency to read one out when the net effect would be exactly the same as just letting them report the events normally.

You can "dance" around it all you like, but you are unable to answer this for an obvious reason: it makes literally no sense.

Do I need a motive to convict Jeffrey Dahmer for eating people?

Assuming you had no other evidence against him - which is the case with your Israelis - it might at least be a start. Interesting that you bring Dahmer up though. Something he and you and MI5 seem to have in common is that you're very keen on killing people.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You can "dance" around it all you like, but you are unable to answer this for an obvious reason: it makes literally no sense.

It makes plenty of sense. Somebody in a position to know certainly knew the building was wired for CD. This is almost as if you're asking US to make excuses for why YOUR story smells like a steaming pile of horsecocky. It certainly isn't OUR fault, but it certainly IS the reason why we don't believe it.

It's really quite simple. This reporting early incident on the BBC demonstrates one thing: Foreknowledge. That's it. That's all that matters. It doesn't make the firemen complicit, or the media in this particular case, because they were just doing what they were told, and reporting what they were told to report.

This is really not a big deal, because we ALREADY knew that someone in a position to know knew that building 7 was wired to implode, because of the simple fact that the police were announcing it by bullhorn pretty much all day after 12 noon. And it's quite telling, that they weren't saying the building "might" collapse, but that it is "going to collapse".

And then of course we have Larry confirming it all with his "pull it" interview.

Quite amazing, since it was hit by no airplane, and certainly showed no visible signs from the outside that it was about to implode on itself. As for the inside, I don't care WHO it was that thought this thing was going to come down, they either had a crystal ball or they knew it was wired for CD.

Assuming you had no other evidence against him - which is the case with your Israelis - it might at least be a start. Interesting that you bring Dahmer up though. Something he and you and MI5 seem to have in common is that you're very keen on killing people.

This is one of the most amusing things you have said yet. You really must be desperate to shed your own guilt on others.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I'm asking you why you think they would bother to get a foreign news agency to read one out when the net effect would be exactly the same as just letting them report the events normally.

You obviously can't see the wood from the trees. The problem you face when you pose such a speculative question is that the BBC got it right. Very right.

We saw two airplanes strike WTC1 and WTC2 and each building collapsed. The catastrophe impacted several building in the vicinity which were all evacuated and firefighters were attending to fires. Then the BBC suddenly brings a news flash announcing the collapse of WTC7. Here is the video if you care to watch;



It was a definitive and authoritative news broadcast that interrupted another news report. They made it unequivocally clear that WTC7 collapsed while it loomed up right behind the reported while she reported its demise.

The news report was not some chitchat about what was happening and someone mistakenly calling WTC 1 WTC 7.

The BBC knew in advance that of all the buildings that WTC 7 was going to collapse. So in consideration of your question - who knows why the BBC may have been given the illicit information of the WTC7 inside job. Perhaps it was some kind of Edward Bernays style mind fXck. It is a question the criminals that organised the 9/11 inside job should answer.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

The BBC knew in advance that of all the buildings that WTC 7 was going to collapse. So in consideration of your question - who knows why the BBC may have been given the illicit information of the WTC7 inside job. Perhaps it was some kind of Edward Bernays style mind fXck. It is a question the criminals that organised the 9/11 inside job should answer.

The BBC - WTC 7 incident is perfect example of confusion/chaos which reigned that day with all sort of bizarre
rumors and half truths flying around

This has provided ample fodder for the conpsiracy loons to quote, ie.

Truck with explosives on George Washington Bridge, State department building in Washington being bombed
Plane crashing at Camp David, etc

All were proven false being a product of rumor and confusion and the desire of news organizations to be first to
report anything - even if dubious or unconfimed

This what happened to BBC who quotated a story from Reuthers who had picked up a story from local (NY)
radio report that WTC 7 HAD collapsed

Considering that the FDNY created a collapse zone around the building mid afternoon in anticipation it might
collapse it somehow got twisted into WTC 7 had already collpased

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
It is a question the criminals that organised the 9/11 inside job should answer.

You need to define who these criminals are so we can ask them. You cant just point your pitchfork anyone and everyone. Do you want to burn Jane Standley at the stake ? Is Edward Bernays guilty of mind control sorcery. Who do you think is guilty ? Be specific.

reply to post by thedman



For someone who thinks that the BBC WTC7 collapse news report was none event, you sure have a lot of information about it.

To describe the prediction of the WTC7 collapse as a coincidence is loony. You must live in a universe where if you throw a deck of cards up into the air they hit ground and form into a playing card castle.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
It is a question the criminals that organised the 9/11 inside job should answer.

You need to define who these criminals are so we can ask them. You cant just point your pitchfork anyone and everyone. Do you want to burn Jane Standley at the stake ? Is Edward Bernays guilty of mind control sorcery. Who do you think is guilty ? Be specific.

edit on 15-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Interesting point Witch Hunter General but it is not my job to "define" these criminals. It is a police matter.

As you rest your receded chin up on you pitchfork of contemplation witch hunter, I ask if your first loyalty is Israel on account of your Hitler video to attack truth seekers who are concerned about the Dancing Israelis?

Me thinks you attack truth seekers because you are very worried from Zionostan.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

It makes plenty of sense. Somebody in a position to know certainly knew the building was wired for CD. This is almost as if you're asking US to make excuses for why YOUR story smells like a steaming pile of horsecocky. It certainly isn't OUR fault, but it certainly IS the reason why we don't believe it.

It's really quite simple. This reporting early incident on the BBC demonstrates one thing: Foreknowledge. That's it. That's all that matters. It doesn't make the firemen complicit, or the media in this particular case, because they were just doing what they were told, and reporting what they were told to report.

I don't understand. Somebody told Chiefs Hayden and Nigro, and whoever was editing BBC 24 at the time, that they were to report that the building had fallen? Nobody at the BBC has mentioned this. Hayden and Nigro oddly left it out of their testimony and instead claim they thought the building would collapse because of the evidence of their eyes. Why would they lie?

None of this really matters though. What you're still unable to explain is why they would tell the BBC what to say. What's the point? All it does is risk blowing the conspiracy's cover for absolutely no discernible gain. And why do you think the BBC and the firemen would not find it suspicious to be told by someone what to say? How you can have the chutzpah to say that this is a flaw in my story I don't know.

This is really not a big deal, because we ALREADY knew that someone in a position to know knew that building 7 was wired to implode, because of the simple fact that the police were announcing it by bullhorn pretty much all day after 12 noon...
Quite amazing, since it was hit by no airplane, and certainly showed no visible signs from the outside that it was about to implode on itself. As for the inside, I don't care WHO it was that thought this thing was going to come down, they either had a crystal ball or they knew it was wired for CD.

I have no idea how you believe this. The building showed several unmistakeable signs that it was going to collapse, as testified to by the fire chiefs. That's why they established the collapse zone.

At least this is what they claim. You can of course say they were in on it, but you can't have it both ways. That won't stop you trying though.

This is one of the most amusing things you have said yet. You really must be desperate to shed your own guilt on others.

edit on 15-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

But I'm not the one who apparently wants to see people die. You are.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

...

It was a definitive and authoritative news broadcast that interrupted another news report. They made it unequivocally clear that WTC7 collapsed while it loomed up right behind the reported while she reported its demise.

The news report was not some chitchat about what was happening and someone mistakenly calling WTC 1 WTC 7.

The BBC knew in advance that of all the buildings that WTC 7 was going to collapse. So in consideration of your question - who knows why the BBC may have been given the illicit information of the WTC7 inside job. Perhaps it was some kind of Edward Bernays style mind fXck. It is a question the criminals that organised the 9/11 inside job should answer.

So basically your answer is that you have no idea what the answer is.

Good luck with that

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

The building showed several unmistakeable signs that it was going to collapse

No it did not.