It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The obvious thing to do would be call the number in the ad and ask them if they placed an ad on ebay.
Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by intrptr
None of them match the truck with the mural in the picture.
Sources tell 20/20 the FBI developed film from a camera taken from the Israelis, and that it shows the three on top of the white van were smiling and appeared to be clowning around
For the FBI, deciphering the truth about the five Israelis proved to be difficult. One of them, Paul Kurzberg, refused to take a lie de-tector test. But after 10 weeks in jail he did take the polygraph and failed it. One of his lawyers later told us Kurzberg had been reluctant to take the test because he had once work for Israeli intelligence in another country. Later, he took a second polygraph test. His lawyer says the results were more favorable.
Sources tell 20/20, after high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials, a settlement was worked out.
MILLER: (VO) Their attorney in Israel is Ram Horvitz. Mr. RAM HORVITZ: This story about the five boys being connected with Israeli intelligence is the most stupid and ridiculous story that I ever heard, and it is nonsense. I don't know who invented this story. Mr. MARK REGAV: These men were not involved in any way in any intelligence operation in the United States. MILLER: (VO) Mark Regav, the spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington, goes even further to say the issue was never even discussed with the US offi-cials.
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.
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.
Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Yet, nowhere in their testimony was it stated that they claimed being there accidentally.
Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
Well, that statement alone "we were there to document"...says it all...would you have said that if you just happened to be there by accident? Very unlogical thing to say...
As far as knowing what they said...I would imagine their attorney would have stated that as their defense...since it would be important. They made no such statement...they only tried to downplay the importance of them cheering and dancing...as if...that's just immature. (I'm referring here to multiple statements made by their attorneys...it is in the links)edit on 5-6-2012 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
Well, that statement alone "we were there to document"...says it all...would you have said that if you just happened to be there by accident? Very unlogical thing to say...
Originally posted by geobro
i can see nobody watched SEENAVVs video on p3 of euhd barak interview watch a 4.59 where a woman cuts in & the time on screen smocking gun more like a cannon .attack has been going on for 3+ hours according to reporter .if you think the bbc messed up with wtc 7 they were broad casting the attack when it was 4 am in new york f sake wakey wakey strange you dont see the time on any of those broadcasts .it never ceases to amaze me how slow many are to that bit of info i have had to point it out to thousands of people when ive asked the question WHAT TIME DID YOU HEAR ABOUT 9-11
Originally posted by waypastvne
No witnesses saw them setting up a camera before AA11 impacted. A woman seeing the report on the news looked out her window towards the towers and saw the men in the parking lot below her. This was well after the impact.
Here is the FBI file on the case with all relevant witness testimony.
www.scribd.com...