"doom posting" isn't my issue. That's a complete mischaracterization of the post.
The guy claimed direct evidence of israeli involvement in 9/11 was not evidence. He also claimed that evidence didn't exist in the first place.
The FBI confirmed at least half of the "dancing Israelis" were mossad agents. They were released, went on Israeli tv, and claimed they were there to "document the event". That's besides "the B thing" were Israeli "art students" were pictured in the towers with hundreds of boxes of industrial switches which could be used to wire ordinance to the support columns.
Anyone arguing against these certified facts is so misinformed they might as well be saying "Russian bots stole the election" still
I certainly think mossad was involved, but I also think it’s a stretch to say their involvement is “proven”.
I’m just standing up for a user who I know contributes a lot more than they ever detract. Remember when you accused me of being clem because we both liked a documentary? That’s what I see happening here
The FBI proves the dancing Israelis were mossad. They said on Israeli TV they were there to "document the event".
At the very least that proves advanced foreknowledge of the attack. And warning an "ally" of an attack like that would be something you did, unless they weren't your ally.
It proves nothing of the kind. One might draw that inference, but it's also possible the mossad members saw the towers or heard about it on media and went to that rooftop to "document the event".
You're misunderstanding the definitions of the words "proof" and "evidence". Sure, it seems pretty likely they did know in advance, but that also makes it a little weird they chose that specific location, when hundreds of better viewpoints were probably available.
What is the difference between proof and evidence?
Evidence is data or facts that assist us in determining the reality or existence of something. A total collection of evidence can prove a claim. Proof is a conclusion that a certain fact is true or not.
"doom posting" isn't my issue. That's a complete mischaracterization of the post.
The guy claimed direct evidence of israeli involvement in 9/11 was not evidence. He also claimed that evidence didn't exist in the first place.
The FBI confirmed at least half of the "dancing Israelis" were mossad agents. They were released, went on Israeli tv, and claimed they were there to "document the event". That's besides "the B thing" were Israeli "art students" were pictured in the towers with hundreds of boxes of industrial switches which could be used to wire ordinance to the support columns.
Anyone arguing against these certified facts is so misinformed they might as well be saying "Russian bots stole the election" still
I certainly think mossad was involved, but I also think it’s a stretch to say their involvement is “proven”.
I’m just standing up for a user who I know contributes a lot more than they ever detract. Remember when you accused me of being clem because we both liked a documentary? That’s what I see happening here
https://www.corbettreport.com/911suspects/
The FBI proves the dancing Israelis were mossad. They said on Israeli TV they were there to "document the event".
At the very least that proves advanced foreknowledge of the attack. And warning an "ally" of an attack like that would be something you did, unless they weren't your ally.
It proves nothing of the kind. One might draw that inference, but it's also possible the mossad members saw the towers or heard about it on media and went to that rooftop to "document the event".
You're misunderstanding the definitions of the words "proof" and "evidence". Sure, it seems pretty likely they did know in advance, but that also makes it a little weird they chose that specific location, when hundreds of better viewpoints were probably available.
That "theory" doesn't match the evidence.
Because that's what they said. They said that. I'm not assuming or making inferences. THEY say this.
Lolwut?
Search those words for more complete definitions.