That is not what he said. He said they were photographing and/or video taping it to document the event, not that they were "sent there to document the event." If you think this is incriminating language, then you're simply naive. It's used in plenty of other places involve neither foreknowledge, nor Jews:Quote:
How about the mossad agent himself saying they were sent there to document the event? Should that be ignored?
THE mushroom cloud that blew over the Japanese city of Hiroshima has remained the most enduring image of the world's first atomic attack. The scale of the devastation following the bombing meant few photographs taken on the ground to document the event have ever surfaced.
Unless, of course, you're going to claim that the guy in Florida had a hand in dropping that meteorite there, too.Quote:
Yesterday a small meteorite struck the back forty of PFHQ!!!
By now you may have already heard about this on CNN or MSNBC as they both sent representatives out to our little "starstruck" bit of Florida. We are quite the celebrities ... after all, how many people have meteorites strike their property?
I have 3 videos, that I shot yesterday. They are a little long and I apologize for the loading time, but I wanted to document the event and share it with the world.
Actually, what the employee of the moving company said is that they were "joking" and said, "Now America knows what we go through." Of course, none of this demonstrates foreknowledge, either.Quote:
Well, a lady said it, another man who I believe worked for that moving company said something very similar. If you believe that these seemingly two unrelated people just coincidentally reported the same thing yet have no merit, then you can believe so.
This has nothing to do with whether or not they had foreknowledge of the attacks.Quote:
The only thing I have come across regarding this is that those men failed multiple polygraph tests, and some people with that moving company left the country when they saw the others apprehended.
You seem to be mistaken on how burden of proof works. You are the one claiming they had foreknowledge, and so you are the one with the burden of proving this to be true. The things I have pointed out do not point to any of them having foreknowledge of the attacks. The things you have pointed out, what few true things there were, do not either. Held for 71 days, investigated by the FBI and CIA, interrogated repeatedly, and ultimately released with no charges being filed... I guess it just leaves me wondering what, exactly, your evidence of their foreknowledge is.Quote:
So this proves their innocence? Are you aware that the Israeli attack on the USS liberty is an event which is celebrated every year in Israel? Who's supposed to give a damn. As bin laden said in his post 9/11 interview, there is a government within the government.
I don't know if Israel attacked the Liberty with the knowledge that it was an American, and not an Egyptian ship, but I am not surprised you are certain in your knowledge of the situation. I've not seen anything that says they celebrate it "every year," although it is a pretty weird thing to celebrate. I do know they've publicly apologized for attacking the ship, and paid over $17MM to the U.S., the wounded men, and the families of the men that died.
But most of all, I have no idea how a ship being attacked in 1967 shows that Israel had specific foreknowledge they did not share, or in any way participated in the attacks on 9/11/2001, a good 30+ years after the Liberty attack.