Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

The gist:

You may have heard the strange story of how George Bush claimed to have seen the first plane hit the World Trade Tower on a television in Booker Elementary School before going into a classroom to hear some children read. This is a strange story because there was no video of the first impact until a day later, when a video shot by a documentary film crew that captured the first impact surfaced.


[ QUOTE ]
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

[/ QUOTE ]

If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Towers, then he saw it before arriving at Booker Elementary. A closed-circuit live feed in his limo is the only way he could have seen that first impact on TV. (He was en route to the school when the first plane struck the WTC)

A great many Bush apologists are trying to claim that Bush saw the second plane impact and that Card simply waited a half hour to go in and tell Bush about it, but if the plane impact Bush claims to have seen was actually the second impact, why didn't he notice that first tower was already on fire?

Also, it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. Especially since they were forewarned in July 2001 about "Terrorists planning to fly commercial aircraft into symbols of American culture"

Still stranger was Bush's reaction on being told of the second impact by chief of staff Andrew Card. There was none. Bush simply went on with the school visit and listened to children reading about a pet goat. For twenty minutes.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

i) Why start a new thread about this?

ii) Bush always mangles his English, so when he said "and I saw an airplane hit the tower" when could easily have meant "and I saw than an airplane had hit the tower". Also consider how incredibly manic 9/11 and the days after must have been for the U.S pres. Seems perfectly reasonable that he would get a few events confused.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

his quote makes it quit clear though that he supposedly saw a plane hit the towers, then half an hour later he was told it was a terrorist act. If he had actually seen the second plane hit the building he would have seen the first tower on fire, thus he would have known right then it was a terrorist act. I agree with you, Bush constantly stumbles over his words, but his statement about 9/11 are definitely strange.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

i) Sorry, my bad.

ii) I will concede that there is the possibility that he simply made a grammatical error. But this compounded with all the other things I have read would lead me to believe otherwise.

Edited: Actually, that very sentence itself, although grammatically incorrect, could be used to explain what you are saying without being mangled. I guess this is not a very good piece of evidence after all. But the fact that he claimed to have thought it was pilot error is VERY suspect.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

He probably meant he "saw that an airplane had hit the tower." There was a question whether it was a terrorist act or simply a crash. It wasn't until the second plane hit that people were sure it was terrorism.

I'm as anti-Bush as they come, but I don't see anything strange in his statement.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

Andy, if what he saw was the second plane hitting the building( And there is no way he could have seen anything but that(unless you want to open up another can of worms)) then there is no reason for him or anyone else to think at that moment that it was a terrorist act.

Let me be clear, I think I am way less anti-Bush then you, and I have a lot of questions about 9/11.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

I don't think he actually saw it. (Oviously he couldn't have, the tape from the ground taken by an amateur wasn't shown on TV until at least the following day.) I think he "saw" that it happened, meaning he understood that it had happened. That is, he saw the building smoking from the result of the crash.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

I can't believe I'm debunking my own "evidence" here but, yes, it's quite possible that he meant "he saw (that) an airplane (had) hit the tower. It's kind of like saying "I heard an airplane hit the tower", while explaining to someone you heard the news over the radio.

That being said, I am still 99% certain that America was behind it, and 100% certain that they would be capable and willing to do something like this in order to rally support for an all-out drive for the world's last reserves of oil and gas.

People who doubt this probably don't quite understand how important this last depleting source of energy is to the global economy, and that by not taking such action could prove to be much more costly in the long run.

This was enough to convince me that a government's use of "pretext incidents" does not go unprecedented. It was also enough for me question past wars and perceived threats/aggression.

The so-called war on terrorism is drilled hypnotically into the public mind as the imperative reality of realities. Washington insists all other values and projects must bend to this quasi-religious be-all and end-all, a template for our lives.

Leaders, confident that few will dare question this Western jihad, use it to traffic in fear. "Terror" goes undefined. But the "war on terror" is actually a war of terror--and deceit.

Without the invocation "Remember September 11th" as a sacred refrain, this crusade would be a much harder sell. It is the "Official Story" of the event of September 11th that constitutes the linchpin for today's "war on terrorism".

Why else do you think they would evoke such an arbitrary and absurd measure as a color-coded "terror alert" meter, and feed us unspecific details like "increased chatter". What effect could this possibly have other than scare the living sh!t out of us?

You're supposedly masters of a "game of incomplete information". So approach this like you would poker. Put your emotions a side for just one second, and look at it rationally. What seems more probable? What I am suggesting, or that a group of Muslim extremists miraculously pulled of the biggest "terrorist" attack ever on American soil, because they don't approve of our way of life, at precisely the same time the U.S. was in desperate need of support for their upcoming invasion and subsequent seizure of Iraqi oil? (Most of you can't deny that America's "W.M.D.-turned-spreading-democracy" story is pretty weak)

You need only watch but a few minutes of CNN with an open mind to see a big fat hidden agenda shining through a transparent veneer of fear-mongering.

Edit: By the way, if what you think I'm suggesting is overkill, think about the fact that they also needed support for Afghanistan (Caspean Sea oil reserve/pipeline), our potential war with Iran, and possibly even North Korea.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I'm debunking my own "evidence" here but, yes, it's quite possible that he meant "he saw (that) an airplane (had) hit the tower. It's kind of like saying "I heard an airplane hit the tower", while explaining to someone you heard the news over the radio.

That being said, I am still 99% certain that America was behind it, and 100% certain that they would be capable and willing to do something like this in order to rally support for an all-out drive for the world's last reserves of oil and gas.

People who doubt this probably don't quite understand how important this last depleting source of energy is to the global economy, and that by not taking such action could prove to be much more costly in the long run.

This was enough to convince me that a government's use of "pretext incidents" does not go unprecedented. It was also enough for me question past wars and perceived threats/aggression.

The so-called war on terrorism is drilled hypnotically into the public mind as the imperative reality of realities. Washington insists all other values and projects must bend to this quasi-religious be-all and end-all, a template for our lives.

Leaders, confident that few will dare question this Western jihad, use it to traffic in fear. "Terror" goes undefined. But the "war on terror" is actually a war of terror--and deceit.

Without the invocation "Remember September 11th" as a sacred refrain, this crusade would be a much harder sell. It is the "Official Story" of the event of September 11th that constitutes the linchpin for today's "war on terrorism".

Why else do you think they would evoke such an arbitrary and absurd measure as a color-coded "terror alert" meter, and feed us unspecific details like "increased chatter". What effect could this possibly have other than scare the living sh!t out of us?

You're supposedly masters of a "game of incomplete information". So approach this like you would poker. Put your emotions a side for just one second, and look at it rationally. What seems more probable? What I am suggesting, or that a group of Muslim extremists miraculously pulled of the biggest "terrorist" attack ever on American soil, because they don't approve of our way of life, at precisely the same time the U.S. was in desperate need of support for their upcoming invasion and subsequent seizure of Iraqi oil? (Most of you can't deny that America's "W.M.D.-turned-spreading-democracy" story is pretty weak)

You need only watch but a few minutes of CNN with an open mind to see a big fat hidden agenda shining through a transparent veneer of fear-mongering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where ya been man? The guys over at the other 9/11 forum have been teamin up against me.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where ya been man? The guys over at the other 9/11 forum have been teamin up against me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this other forum you speak of?

Bob

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

Britney, you wouldn't need such an elaborate pretext and staged event to marshall widespread support for an invasion of the Middle East.

All that would be necessary would be convince the American public that gasoline was going to $10/gal (or maybe $5 or $6) due to dwindling supplies, and the majority of Americans would be gung-ho to go and take over a country with nice big oilfields.

Saudi Arabia would be the best choice because they have the best oilfields, are relatively undefended, are two-faced towards the U.S. (being "chummy" on the surface but really spending billions to spread virulently anti-American Wahhabist propaganda around the world), and because we first helped them get the oil out of the ground in the first place and we had rights to it by the deal that was struck and then they went and claimed entire ownership of all that oil (dealbreaking).

Convincing the American public of the above would not be that hard because it is largely true. The hardest part would be convincing people that oil prices were going to go so high as to really hurt them in the pocket. Gasoline at $5+ could send us into a deep recession or even a Depression.

Now add the fact that the Saudis bear large responsibility for 9/11 (the hijackers were mostly Saudi, but more importantly, because the Saudi government has done such a fantastic job of spreading Wahhabist extremism and hatred of the West). So the Saudis more or less OWE the U.S. compensation for about 2/3 or the total damages from 9/11--including not only immediate damages but consequent economic damages as well.

So put it all together and I think this is right down your pike and you might care to investigate this line of thinking further.

I for one think we should quite possibly do the following: present the Saudis with a bill for 200 billion dollars payable immediately and a stern warning that if they don't pay it and stop spreading this horrid extremism in the mosques which creates fanatics and suicidal terrorists, Saudi Arabia will become the 51st state of the union. And if they call our bluff, DO IT! It would be a CAKEWALK compared to Iraq. The cheap gas would also benefit our economy humongously. And they can take that warped fanatical ideology and throw it in the trashcan, because they will have to adhere to the U.S. Constitution then!

No more religious discrimination! Women actually allowed to drive! No more official beheadings every weekend in Execution Square in Riyadh! No more religious police roaming the streets ordering people to report for prayer at the nearest mosque! No more religious police beating women with sticks for being out in public unveiled, or for showing some calf (never mind some thigh). Equal rights for everyone!

You guys blew it: you had it made in fat city with your oil and palaces, but you tried to spread too much medievalism, and that crap led to the attacks on the U.S.! See ya later, guys: time to pull your heads out and step in to to the 21st century!

Well whatcha think, Britney? That could fly and would fly if the price of oil gets too high, don'tcha think?

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where ya been man? The guys over at the other 9/11 forum have been teamin up against me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this other forum you speak of?

Bob

[/ QUOTE ]


Errr I meant thread. Its the WTC one.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Britney, you wouldn't need such an elaborate pretext and staged event to marshall widespread support for an invasion of the Middle East.

All that would be necessary would be convince the American public that gasoline was going to $10/gal (or maybe $5 or $6) due to dwindling supplies, and the majority of Americans would be gung-ho to go and take over a country with nice big oilfields.

Saudi Arabia would be the best choice because they have the best oilfields, are relatively undefended, are two-faced towards the U.S. (being "chummy" on the surface but really spending billions to spread virulently anti-American Wahhabist propaganda around the world), and because we first helped them get the oil out of the ground in the first place and we had rights to it by the deal that was struck and then they went and claimed entire ownership of all that oil (dealbreaking).

Convincing the American public of the above would not be that hard because it is largely true. The hardest part would be convincing people that oil prices were going to go so high as to really hurt them in the pocket. Gasoline at $5+ could send us into a deep recession or even a Depression.

Now add the fact that the Saudis bear large responsibility for 9/11 (the hijackers were mostly Saudi, but more importantly, because the Saudi government has done such a fantastic job of spreading Wahhabist extremism and hatred of the West). So the Saudis more or less OWE the U.S. compensation for about 2/3 or the total damages from 9/11--including not only immediate damages but consequent economic damages as well.

So put it all together and I think this is right down your pike and you might care to investigate this line of thinking further.

I for one think we should quite possibly do the following: present the Saudis with a bill for 200 billion dollars payable immediately and a stern warning that if they don't pay it and stop spreading this horrid extremism in the mosques which creates fanatics and suicidal terrorists, Saudi Arabia will become the 51st state of the union. And if they call our bluff, DO IT! It would be a CAKEWALK compared to Iraq. The cheap gas would also benefit our economy humongously. And they can take that warped fanatical ideology and throw it in the trashcan, because they will have to adhere to the U.S. Constitution then!

No more religious discrimination! Women actually allowed to drive! No more official beheadings every weekend in Execution Square in Riyadh! No more religious police roaming the streets ordering people to report for prayer at the nearest mosque! No more religious police beating women with sticks for being out in public unveiled, or for showing some calf (never mind some thigh). Equal rights for everyone!

You guys blew it: you had it made in fat city with your oil and palaces, but you tried to spread too much medievalism, and that crap led to the attacks on the U.S.! See ya later, guys: time to pull your heads out and step in to to the 21st century!

Well whatcha think, Britney? That could fly and would fly if the price of oil gets too high, don'tcha think?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, the government could convince the public that we really needed oil. But wow - think of the consequences. What soldier would want to fight and die for oil? "Freedom" is such a more noble thing to fight for. And I really don't think that the majority of the US, no matter how poor, would agree to send their kids, spouses and parents into battle for oil. I mean, you gotta be a pretty hardcore person to do that.

Plus, what's the rest of the world gonna think if the US goes to war just for oil? We would probably lose UN support and maybe even be charged for war crimes (murdering and stealing.) Plus, with Bush appealing to all that is Christian in America - what would his religious supporters think?

In other words, reedom is such a better reason to go to war than oil.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Without oil, all modern economies collapse, and with that comes an immmense number of deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

So war for oil is actually a damn good reason, if it means the difference in a great many lives saved or lost and the difference between economic prosperity and depression.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

If anyone thinks we went to war for freedom, that'd be funny, because its a joke.

There were a couple factors in the Iraq war. It had to do with oil, but not in the way ppl expect. It actually has to do with the dollar vs. the euro (with Nixon taking the dollar off the gold standard, what is the dollar now based off of? Oil.) -- Iraq was the first and only country that started buying oil with the Euro. A big no no, for the US economy...911 provides the perfect seqway to a war. Read the following articles. Can u imagine if OPEC switched over to the Euro, how devastating it would be to the US economy?

Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs. Euro

Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq


Besides US economy there were other reasons.
1.Foothold in the Middle East.
2.Saddam...payback time
3.Minor threats of terrorism coming out of Iraq (yes, minor)

I cant believe ppl bought the whole issue of freedom and WMDs.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

As far as oil, we'll always need oil...but protecting the US economy and having a foothold were the major issues. Not aquiring oil, and while being a side issue, its definitly a good side issue. Oil is massivly important...and its only going to keep getting that way.

I suggest anyone read the Long Emergency. Link here:

Long Emergency (Amazon)

It deals with the Oil Production Peak, which we are in, and what is going to happen as the resources start to dwindle out (about 20 years from now). The world is going to be an intresting place 20 years from now.

Rolling Stones website had an experct of this book. Its good stuff. Very intresting. Talks about how different life will be if new sources of energy are not found fast. The only problem with it, being later in the book you can definitly tell hes against globalism and big buisness...its still quite thought provoking and well researched.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone thinks we went to war for freedom, that'd be funny, because its a joke.

There were a couple factors in the Iraq war. It had to do with oil, but not in the way ppl expect. It actually has to do with the dollar vs. the euro (with Nixon taking the dollar off the gold standard, what is the dollar now based off of? Oil.) -- Iraq was the first and only country that started buying oil with the Euro. A big no no, for the US economy...911 provides the perfect seqway to a war. Read the following articles. Can u imagine if OPEC switched over to the Euro, how devastating it would be to the US economy?

Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs. Euro

Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq


Besides US economy there were other reasons.
1.Foothold in the Middle East.
2.Saddam...payback time
3.Minor threats of terrorism coming out of Iraq (yes, minor)

I cant believe ppl bought the whole issue of freedom and WMDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. But at the time after 9/11, it was freedom that pushed everybody to go to war. Everybody's freedom was threatened by 9/11, so we had to go into Iraq and stop the bully. But hey, at least people are beginning to see that we're not fighting for freedom or WMDs.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anyone thinks we went to war for freedom, that'd be funny, because its a joke.

There were a couple factors in the Iraq war. It had to do with oil, but not in the way ppl expect. It actually has to do with the dollar vs. the euro (with Nixon taking the dollar off the gold standard, what is the dollar now based off of? Oil.) -- Iraq was the first and only country that started buying oil with the Euro. A big no no, for the US economy...911 provides the perfect seqway to a war. Read the following articles. Can u imagine if OPEC switched over to the Euro, how devastating it would be to the US economy?

Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs. Euro

Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq


Besides US economy there were other reasons.
1.Foothold in the Middle East.
2.Saddam...payback time
3.Minor threats of terrorism coming out of Iraq (yes, minor)

I cant believe ppl bought the whole issue of freedom and WMDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. But at the time after 9/11, it was freedom that pushed everybody to go to war. Everybody's freedom was threatened by 9/11, so we had to go into Iraq and stop the bully. But hey, at least people are beginning to see that we're not fighting for freedom or WMDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yeah, you got to give ppl what they want. Feeding what they want to hear. Ppl want revenge, you have carte blanche to go to war, blame it on somebody, anybody and go fight.

True ppl are starting to see through the crap now, but the day of 9/11, I was in Brooklyn...my ex-girlfriend and I went downstairs to this pizzaria to watch the news (our cable was out that day)...we see whats going on, and I tell her..."looks like Bush is going to get his war with Iraq."

Did I know for sure? No, but I thought it was a hell of a possibility. Who could not see the Bush vs. Saddam match up? If it wasnt war, they'd come to a head at some point.

Im amazed he got re-elected. Actually Im not...did u see a voting results map...where it maps out how the country votes? Almost every metropolitan area (just about every city) voted for Kerry...yet Middle america, which has an edge in pure #s, almost all voted for Bush. Its an intresting thing to think about.

I dont want to say being subserviant to rednecks and evangelicals sucks, but I will.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

Yeah if you conquer middle America, you win the polls... in other words, if you can appeal to a whole bunch of God-fearing country-lovin' buck-tooth conservatives, you got it made. (I can say "God-fearing country-lovin' buck-tooth conservatives" because that basically describes my family.)

On a side note, I'm sure you've seen all the polls that show results that are very anti-Bush. It's weird how the majority of the country can go from voting for Bush in 2004 to being against his policies in mid/late 2005. Although I have seen some evidence of voting fraud on Bush's part, I'm not completely sure of it. But it's starting to make sense as it seems the majority of the country is turned against him.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont want to say being subserviant to rednecks and evangelicals sucks, but I will.



[/ QUOTE ]

Elitist, rascist, classist, out of touch with the average man, condescending, and certainly in the minority......

Its not just for Republicans anymore. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah if you conquer middle America, you win the polls... in other words, if you can appeal to a whole bunch of God-fearing country-lovin' buck-tooth conservatives, you got it made. (I can say "God-fearing country-lovin' buck-tooth conservatives" because that basically describes my family.)


[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to conquering the world of millionaire trial lawyers, out of touch zillionaire "progressives, and ivory towered pseudo intellectuals and the ignorant/naive undergrads that suck up their drivel.

Ive made my choice. You have to make your own.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Britney, you wouldn't need such an elaborate pretext and staged event to marshall widespread support for an invasion of the Middle East.

All that would be necessary would be convince the American public that gasoline was going to $10/gal (or maybe $5 or $6) due to dwindling supplies, and the majority of Americans would be gung-ho to go and take over a country with nice big oilfields. I stopped reading here. My respect sir - Gone.



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah if you conquer middle America, you win the polls... in other words, if you can appeal to a whole bunch of God-fearing country-lovin' buck-tooth conservatives, you got it made. (I can say "God-fearing country-lovin' buck-tooth conservatives" because that basically describes my family.)


[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to conquering the world of millionaire trial lawyers, out of touch zillionaire "progressives, and ivory towered pseudo intellectuals and the ignorant/naive undergrads that suck up their drivel.

Ive made my choice. You have to make your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, as opposed to city people in general... but that of course includes most of who you just named. I think I missed your point though.

Re: Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Britney, you wouldn't need such an elaborate pretext and staged event to marshall widespread support for an invasion of the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]

All that would be necessary would be convince the American public that gasoline was going to $10/gal (or maybe $5 or $6) due to dwindling supplies, and the majority of Americans would be gung-ho to go and take over a country with nice big oilfields.

I stopped reading here. My respect sir - Gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the whole post was half in jest, but also probably more true than it would seem at first glance.

It's also probably closer to the $10 figure than the $5 figure.

At $10/gallon gasoline or thereabouts (in today's dollars), the economic damage to our country would be so great, if sustained over time, that there quite possibly might be no other choice than to go to war over oil. And if not at $10, then at, say, $15.

Sad or scary, indeed, but very possibly true.