Was Trump right? Were there Muslims celebrating 9/11 attacks in New Jersey?

[TemplarKormac]

This was just one of many accounts from that day, from actual people on the ground:

Twitter didn't exist in 2001, and the date of that tweet says that it happened in the last few days.

You know that I was there on Sept. 11th, right?

I never said it did. The person posting was there on 9/11 too. Of course he didn't live tweet the damned thing. What a ludicrous suggestion, Doc.

It's not an "account from that day" if it was written 14 years later.

When you told me

"You know, I was there on Sept 11th, right"

You are providing me with the fact you were there... 14 years ago. So, am I to dismiss the claim purely because it was written 14 years after the fact? Preposterous.

No, you should dismiss the claims because there's no actual evidence to back them up.

If I tweeted that I saw Donald Trump shapeshift into a lizard alien 20 years ago, would you believe it?

If you said you were there on 9/11, should I believe you? Can you provide me with evidence to that end? What stops me from calling you a bald faced liar?

 

[Clementine]

Does it really matter one way or the other? ......

Trump is trying to justify closing Mosques and building a database on all muslim refugees.

So, does that matter to you?

Does it matter if a lot of Muslims are anti-American, radical-supporting people? And the silent ones are either going along with radicals or too afraid to speak out. And the ones they would be afraid of are fellow Muslims.

Does that bother anyone?

I think anyone associating with known radicals should be on a list. There are radical Imams running mosques and CAIR itself is self-serving and doesn't do shit for anyone but Muslims.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where did you get that tripe from?

It was in all the papers at the time. A woman observed the celebrants happily taking pictures while standing on top of the moving van and reported them to the Jersey City police. She took down the license plate number as the white van left and the police put out an APB for the van. It was found in Fort Lee and the occupants were arrested and the FBI was called in. Their film was developed in the Newark office and indeed showed the Israelis quite happy about the towers on fire. That was what was what was cited by Trump in the WaPo article except it didn't come out that the 5 men were Israelis until the police report and FBI report were partially declassified.

Here is the van they were "tailgating" on:

"It was all in the papers" your say. You can do better than that.

How is that different from Trump saying it was heavily covered on TV?

5 Young Israelis, Caught in Net of Suspicion

As their lawyer tells it, when the five young men were picked up by F.B.I. agents in midday on Sept. 11, they had a box cutter with them. One man carried $4,000 in cash, another had two passports.

In short, there probably were good reasons to be suspicious of the men who became the subjects of widespread news coverage.

What those early news accounts missed, however, was that all five of the men were Israeli Jews, and that if they had box cutters, it was because at least four of them and possibly all five worked for Urban Moving Systems, a household moving company in New York and New Jersey.

This had nothing to do with the witnesses saying the celebrants were ON THE ROOFTOPS, NOT ON TOP OF MOVING TRUCKS.

Move along.

The witness saw them on the roof of the "moving" van while it was PARKED below her window.
It was a moving van in that it was used to move peoples household items, not that the van was in motion.
CON$ are the stupidest people on Earth, no wonder Trump feels so confident lying to them!!!

What about the tailgate parties? Were they on top of moving trucks too?

Geez.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Twitter didn't exist in 2001, and the date of that tweet says that it happened in the last few days.

You know that I was there on Sept. 11th, right?

I never said it did. The person posting was there on 9/11 too. Of course he didn't live tweet the damned thing. What a ludicrous suggestion, Doc.

It's not an "account from that day" if it was written 14 years later.

When you told me

"You know, I was there on Sept 11th, right"

You are providing me with the fact you were there... 14 years ago. So, am I to dismiss the claim purely because it was written 14 years after the fact? Preposterous.

No, you should dismiss the claims because there's no actual evidence to back them up.

If I tweeted that I saw Donald Trump shapeshift into a lizard alien 20 years ago, would you believe it?

If you said you were there on 9/11, should I believe you? Can you provide me with evidence to that end? What stops me from calling you a bald faced liar?

I actually do have proof.

But that's not the point, because I don't care if you believe me or not.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's not up to anyone on this forum to "prove" you and Trump wrong, clown. It's up to you to "prove" that it happened.

No, not really. You and the rest of the forum scum are calling Trump a liar. If you have no proof he lied, than you're guilty of libel.

"Libel"?

You can't possibly be that dumb.

Only leftwing dumbshits think truth is dumb.

Only butthurt, whiny right-wingers think you can sue someone for calling you a liar anonymously on the internet.

Then why do members of this forum get banned for making false statements about other members?

Well, first of all, no one has ever been banned for "making false statements about other members".

Secondly, the rules of this board aren't a court of law, anyway.

 

[edthecynic]

Info Wars is something I never cite, but for some ill educated persons on this thread, like yourself, I'll cite it just for you:

I Live In Jersey And Trump Is Right: Muslims DID Celebrate On 9/11 In NJ . . . We Saw It!

You mean you never cite InfoWars, except when its the only place you can find confirmation for your preconceived bias.

No. It cites eyewitness accounts. Yeah, nice genetic argument there.

Anonymous "eyewitnesses" making claims on twitter. Because we know that no one ever lies on the internet, right?

And Alex Jones fans have such a good track record for being right, too.

Actually Alex Jones ALSO acknowledges the arrested celebrating Israelis, only then he goes off into his conspiracy bullshit.

Prison Planet.com » Cop Who Arested The Five Dancing Israeli’s On 9/11 Speaks Out

Sept 24, 2011

The New Jersey police officer responsible for capturing five Israelis who filmed and celebrated while the World Trade Center towers burned has broken his silence, agreeing to a Sept. 16 exclusive interview with AMERICAN FREE PRESS.

As AFP readers are no doubt aware, these are the same Israelis who were working under the direction of Urban Moving Systems, a Mossad front company at the center of Israeli involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Watch this:

Bripat9643 has a third arm growing out of the middle of his forehead.

Are you going to sue me now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, if this WaPo article from September 18, 2001 is to be believed.

Given Trump's penchant for hyperbole, when he claimed "I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering."

While there may have not been "thousands" as he claimed, there were at least a hundred or more Muslims celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center, just across the river in Jersey City that day.

In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners' plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.

Northern New Jersey Draws Probers' Eyes

So, was he right? You decide.

Who cares? Why do you care?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does it really matter one way or the other? ......

Trump is trying to justify closing Mosques and building a database on all muslim refugees.

So, does that matter to you?

It's a lame attempt to duplicate the Reichstag fire of 1933.

 

[edthecynic]

It was in all the papers at the time. A woman observed the celebrants happily taking pictures while standing on top of the moving van and reported them to the Jersey City police. She took down the license plate number as the white van left and the police put out an APB for the van. It was found in Fort Lee and the occupants were arrested and the FBI was called in. Their film was developed in the Newark office and indeed showed the Israelis quite happy about the towers on fire. That was what was what was cited by Trump in the WaPo article except it didn't come out that the 5 men were Israelis until the police report and FBI report were partially declassified.

Here is the van they were "tailgating" on:

"It was all in the papers" your say. You can do better than that.

How is that different from Trump saying it was heavily covered on TV?

5 Young Israelis, Caught in Net of Suspicion

As their lawyer tells it, when the five young men were picked up by F.B.I. agents in midday on Sept. 11, they had a box cutter with them. One man carried $4,000 in cash, another had two passports.

In short, there probably were good reasons to be suspicious of the men who became the subjects of widespread news coverage.

What those early news accounts missed, however, was that all five of the men were Israeli Jews, and that if they had box cutters, it was because at least four of them and possibly all five worked for Urban Moving Systems, a household moving company in New York and New Jersey.

This had nothing to do with the witnesses saying the celebrants were ON THE ROOFTOPS, NOT ON TOP OF MOVING TRUCKS.

Move along.

The witness saw them on the roof of the "moving" van while it was PARKED below her window.
It was a moving van in that it was used to move peoples household items, not that the van was in motion.
CON$ are the stupidest people on Earth, no wonder Trump feels so confident lying to them!!!

What about the tailgate parties? Were they on top of moving trucks too?

Geez.

There were no additional tailgate parties other than the 5 dancing Israelis celebrating on the roof of their parked moving van.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I never said it did. The person posting was there on 9/11 too. Of course he didn't live tweet the damned thing. What a ludicrous suggestion, Doc.

It's not an "account from that day" if it was written 14 years later.

When you told me

"You know, I was there on Sept 11th, right"

You are providing me with the fact you were there... 14 years ago. So, am I to dismiss the claim purely because it was written 14 years after the fact? Preposterous.

No, you should dismiss the claims because there's no actual evidence to back them up.

If I tweeted that I saw Donald Trump shapeshift into a lizard alien 20 years ago, would you believe it?

If you said you were there on 9/11, should I believe you? Can you provide me with evidence to that end? What stops me from calling you a bald faced liar?

I actually do have proof.

But that's not the point, because I don't care if you believe me or not.

Of course you do. But since you clearly won't present it, clearly your right of course, I cannot confirm (nor deny), that you were there on 9/11. Doc, I'm using your logic here.

Okay:

On November 25, 2015, Doc says "I was there on 9/11"

September 11, 2001 was 14 years , 2 months and 2 weeks ago.

So, using this logic, the time period which passed between you supposedly being there, and the time you made the claim on this thread, that "I was there on 9/11" should therefore place the veracity of the claim into dispute.

So, in essence, the passage of time invalidates the claim on its face, if I'm understanding you correctly.

I heard somewhere that this kind of argument is known as, or is a form of "chronological snobbery."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's not an "account from that day" if it was written 14 years later.

When you told me

"You know, I was there on Sept 11th, right"

You are providing me with the fact you were there... 14 years ago. So, am I to dismiss the claim purely because it was written 14 years after the fact? Preposterous.

No, you should dismiss the claims because there's no actual evidence to back them up.

If I tweeted that I saw Donald Trump shapeshift into a lizard alien 20 years ago, would you believe it?

If you said you were there on 9/11, should I believe you? Can you provide me with evidence to that end? What stops me from calling you a bald faced liar?

I actually do have proof.

But that's not the point, because I don't care if you believe me or not.

Of course you do. But since you clearly won't present it, clearly your right of course, I cannot confirm, (nor deny), that you were there on 9/11. Doc, I'm using your logic here.

Okay:

On November 25, 2015, Doc says "I was there on 9/11"

September 11, 2001 was 14 years , 2 months and two weeks ago.

So, using your logic, the time period which passed between you supposedly being there, and the time you made the claim on this thread, that "I was there on 9/11" should therefore place the veracity of the claim into dispute.

So, in essence, the passage of time invalidates the claim on it's face, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Unsurprisingly, you're not understanding me correctly.

The passage of time doesn't "invalidate" anything, but it makes it a lot harder to believe something that there's not a single shred of evidence for, and would have been big news 14 years ago, and that this guy waited until 14 years later to talk about it, conveniently soon after Trump made his asinine comments.

 

[bripat9643]

No, not really. You and the rest of the forum scum are calling Trump a liar. If you have no proof he lied, than you're guilty of libel.

"Libel"?

You can't possibly be that dumb.

Only leftwing dumbshits think truth is dumb.

Only butthurt, whiny right-wingers think you can sue someone for calling you a liar anonymously on the internet.

Then why do members of this forum get banned for making false statements about other members?

Well, first of all, no one has ever been banned for "making false statements about other members".

Secondly, the rules of this board aren't a court of law, anyway.

Well, you're wrong about that. I happen to know of one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The passage of time doesn't "invalidate" anything, but it makes it a lot harder to believe something that there's not a single shred of evidence for, and would have been big news 14 years ago, and that this guy waited until 14 years later to talk about it, conveniently soon after Trump made his asinine comments.

You waited 14 years to tell me, not only now, but on one other previous occasion on this forum, that you were there on 9/11. And since you won't provide proof, whilst asserting you have proof, there is no proof you were there. That is all I can discern from that.

The reason I don't dispute the veracity of the tweet in the picture I posted, is because the person was quite specific about where he was and what he was doing at that time. Not simply "I was there and I saw it." He gave details and specifics.

 

[bripat9643]

When you told me

"You know, I was there on Sept 11th, right"

You are providing me with the fact you were there... 14 years ago. So, am I to dismiss the claim purely because it was written 14 years after the fact? Preposterous.

No, you should dismiss the claims because there's no actual evidence to back them up.

If I tweeted that I saw Donald Trump shapeshift into a lizard alien 20 years ago, would you believe it?

If you said you were there on 9/11, should I believe you? Can you provide me with evidence to that end? What stops me from calling you a bald faced liar?

I actually do have proof.

But that's not the point, because I don't care if you believe me or not.

Of course you do. But since you clearly won't present it, clearly your right of course, I cannot confirm, (nor deny), that you were there on 9/11. Doc, I'm using your logic here.

Okay:

On November 25, 2015, Doc says "I was there on 9/11"

September 11, 2001 was 14 years , 2 months and two weeks ago.

So, using your logic, the time period which passed between you supposedly being there, and the time you made the claim on this thread, that "I was there on 9/11" should therefore place the veracity of the claim into dispute.

So, in essence, the passage of time invalidates the claim on it's face, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Unsurprisingly, you're not understanding me correctly.

The passage of time doesn't "invalidate" anything, but it makes it a lot harder to believe something that there's not a single shred of evidence for, and would have been big news 14 years ago, and that this guy waited until 14 years later to talk about it, conveniently soon after Trump made his asinine comments.

It wasn't big news only because there were bigger celebrations in Palestine and other Arab countries.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The passage of time doesn't "invalidate" anything, but it makes it a lot harder to believe something that there's not a single shred of evidence for, and would have been big news 14 years ago, and that this guy waited until 14 years later to talk about it, conveniently soon after Trump made his asinine comments.

You waited 14 years to tell me, not only now, but on one other previous occasion on this forum, that you were there on 9/11. And since you won't provide proof, whilst asserting you have proof, there is no proof you were there. That is all I can discern from that.

The reason I don't dispute the veracity of the tweet in the picture I posted, is because the person was quite specific about where he was and what he was doing at that time. Not simply "I was there and I saw it." He gave details and specifics.

Do you believe every "specific" looking tweet you read, or only the ones that confirm your biases?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Libel"?

You can't possibly be that dumb.

Only leftwing dumbshits think truth is dumb.

Only butthurt, whiny right-wingers think you can sue someone for calling you a liar anonymously on the internet.

Then why do members of this forum get banned for making false statements about other members?

Well, first of all, no one has ever been banned for "making false statements about other members".

Secondly, the rules of this board aren't a court of law, anyway.

Well, you're wrong about that. I happen to know of one.

No, you don't. You only think you do.

I've been a moderator for much of your time on this board, and I can say for certain that no one has ever been banned simply for "making false statements about another poster".

As you can clearly see, "lying about other posters" happens on this board every single day, and if we banned anyone for that, we'd pretty much have to ban everyone.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The passage of time doesn't "invalidate" anything, but it makes it a lot harder to believe something that there's not a single shred of evidence for, and would have been big news 14 years ago, and that this guy waited until 14 years later to talk about it, conveniently soon after Trump made his asinine comments.

You waited 14 years to tell me, not only now, but on one other previous occasion on this forum, that you were there on 9/11. And since you won't provide proof, whilst asserting you have proof, there is no proof you were there. That is all I can discern from that.

The reason I don't dispute the veracity of the tweet in the picture I posted, is because the person was quite specific about where he was and what he was doing at that time. Not simply "I was there and I saw it." He gave details and specifics.

Do you believe every "specific" looking tweet you read, or only the ones that confirm your biases?

You know, you're bent on calling me biased, but not on disproving me. I remember being called down by you in some thread long past about using genetic arguments. I attacked your source without investigating the claim, or rebutting the argument you made. I summarily dismissed your argument due to the false presumption of your biases. Thus a genetic argument was born.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The passage of time doesn't "invalidate" anything, but it makes it a lot harder to believe something that there's not a single shred of evidence for, and would have been big news 14 years ago, and that this guy waited until 14 years later to talk about it, conveniently soon after Trump made his asinine comments.

You waited 14 years to tell me, not only now, but on one other previous occasion on this forum, that you were there on 9/11. And since you won't provide proof, whilst asserting you have proof, there is no proof you were there. That is all I can discern from that.

The reason I don't dispute the veracity of the tweet in the picture I posted, is because the person was quite specific about where he was and what he was doing at that time. Not simply "I was there and I saw it." He gave details and specifics.

Do you believe every "specific" looking tweet you read, or only the ones that confirm your biases?

You know, you're bent on calling me biased, but not on disproving me. I remember being called down by you in some thread long past about using genetic arguments. I attacked your source without investigating the claim, or rebutting the argument you made. I summarily dismissed your argument due to the false presumption of your biases. Thus a genetic argument was born.

It's not up to me to "disprove" you. It's up to you to "prove" you.

Which you haven't done.

I have to sign off for a while, I've got some work to take care of. But I'll be back on later.


I'll leave you with this, since you're such a fan of logic:

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Only leftwing dumbshits think truth is dumb.

Only butthurt, whiny right-wingers think you can sue someone for calling you a liar anonymously on the internet.

Then why do members of this forum get banned for making false statements about other members?

Well, first of all, no one has ever been banned for "making false statements about other members".

Secondly, the rules of this board aren't a court of law, anyway.

Well, you're wrong about that. I happen to know of one.

No, you don't. You only think you do.

I've been a moderator for much of your time on this board, and I can say for certain that no one has ever been banned simply for "making false statements about another poster".

As you can clearly see, "lying about other posters" happens on this board every single day, and if we banned anyone for that, we'd pretty much have to ban everyone.

They were banned for making slanderous statements. If eye claim your eyes are pink, that's a false statement about you, but it's not slanderous. If I accuse you of being a child molester, that's a slanderous statement. I've been banned for even hinting that someone was a child molester, so your claim is obvious bullshit.