Explain This (Or simply Dismiss And Ignore It)

[SpearsBritney]

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.

[partygirluk]

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.

[ThaSaltCracka]

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.

[SpearsBritney]

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.

[andyfox]

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.

[ThaSaltCracka]

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.

[andyfox]

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.

[SpearsBritney]

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.

[Cumulonimbus]

[ 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.

[Bob Moss]

[ 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