• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

I think Bush had a direct video feed to the cameras of the five dancing Joooz.

:hypnotize

No, really, he responded that way at a campaign event. He misrememberated it, on purpose or not, I don't know.

If he had meant to use the word "had", he would have used it the second time. He remembered the event in a way that suited him politically. But after the second time, somebody in his staff perhaps pointed out the impossibility of his having seen the first plane hit the tower.
 
ranson said:
That's a prime example of southern USA grammar. Both phrases hold the same meaning in most southern US dialects.
Click to expand...
It would be less ambiguous with a different verb other than "hit," because "hit" is both present tense and past tense. The sentence on first hearing sounds like he means the present tense, but if you read it as past tense, it is plausible that he meant that he saw that an airplane had hit the tower:

"I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower." Read that again, but force yourself to read "hit" as past tense.

That's plausible that he meant he saw that it had been hit previously, or it's plausible that he thought he recalled seeing the first plane hit, but misremembered. On the other hand, the idea that he really did see the first plane hit on some secret closed-circuit NWO network, and admitted it to the national media, is something only a CT could believe.
 
CurtC said:
It would be less ambiguous with a different verb other than "hit," because "hit" is both present tense and past tense. The sentence on first hearing sounds like he means the present tense, but if you read it as past tense, it is plausible that he meant that he saw that an airplane had hit the tower:

"I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower." Read that again, but force yourself to read "hit" as past tense.

That's plausible that he meant he saw that it had been hit previously, or it's plausible that he thought he recalled seeing the first plane hit, but misremembered. On the other hand, the idea that he really did see the first plane hit on some secret closed-circuit NWO network, and admitted it to the national media, is something only a CT could believe.
Click to expand...
its easier to show if you use another word, such as "crash into" instead of hit

i saw an airplane crash into the towers

i saw an airplane crashed into the towers

of course with "hit" those two sentences would be indentical
 
Too bad he isn't hillbilly and said "I saw a plane hitted the tower" (insert appropriate smilie)

Lord, please forgive me for saying bad things about the hillbillies and feed all the starving pygmies, Amen
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Too bad he isn't hillbilly and said "I saw a plane hitted the tower" (insert appropriate smilie)

Lord, please forgive me for saying bad things about the hillbillies and feed all the starving pygmies, Amen
Click to expand...

Na'I don't care who y'ar, that's funny raight thar!
 
Some Ctists sem to think that no one ever misspeaks. I wonder what they'd make of the title of this thread:

Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't it be:

Did Bush watch the plane hit the first tower ?
Click to expand...

So clearly, Non Believer is in on it!
 
Even President Bush's most ardent supporters readily acknowledge the accidental violence he inflicts upon the english language.

The twoofers know it too and enjoy making fun of him for it as much, if not more, than his mainstream critics.

Except, of course when Bush says something that fits one of thier pet theories. Then they claim the probability of him flubbing it up again somehow drops to zero. They never explain why, for that particular circumstance there is zero likelyhood for Bush to have tripped over his own tounge again.
 
doctorfungi said:
He said he watched it on television. Was it one of those super NWO TV's that no one else can access? Probably.

He then probably morphed into his reptilian form and back to normal before he entered the classroom. We can tell this by playing the 1st verse to "YMCA" in reverse and watching "Top Gun" at the same time. It's so obvious!
Click to expand...

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. For example:
  • If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy!
  • If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla!
This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.


What is it with all you fanatics and your 9/11 back slapping? If you're tired of the CTers why don't you just ignore them. Posting crap like this makes you look like a bunch of nay-sayers and not a bunch of sceptics.

I don't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also treat anything issued by the government with a degree of scepticism.

I don't believe the CTers have any grounds to suggest a CT. I would also suggest that none of you know for sure, enough about 9/11 to be confident enough to 'debunk' the CTers in this mocking way.

Moreover, it is a type of logical fallacy, which is ironic because Dr Fungi points out the appeal to numbers/authority fallacy in his sig then proceeds to use the fallacy of appeal to ridicule/strawman himself.
 
personable said:
What is it with all you fanatics and your 9/11 back slapping? If you're tired of the CTers why don't you just ignore them. Posting crap like this makes you look like a bunch of nay-sayers and not a bunch of sceptics.

I don't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also treat anything issued by the government with a degree of scepticism.

I don't believe the CTers have any grounds to suggest a CT. I would also suggest that none of you know for sure, enough about 9/11 to be confident enough to 'debunk' the CTers in this mocking way.

Moreover, it is a type of logical fallacy, which is ironic because Dr Fungi points out the appeal to numbers/authority fallacy in his sig then proceeds to use the fallacy of appeal to ridicule/strawman himself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, guys, what's with all the laughing and making fun of the CT'ers?

You big meanies!
 
the problem is theres no real way to address come of these CT issues, if you ignore them they dont go away, if you ridicule them its a fallacy, if you address them intellectually your validating them in the CTers mind

its lose-lose-lose with some of these people
 
Personable, you focused on one humorous post when 27 other posts pretty much nailed that conspiracy.

Maybe you should take your own advice and ignore the posts you don't like.
 
personable said:
Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. For example:
  • If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy!
  • If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla!
This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.


What is it with all you fanatics and your 9/11 back slapping? If you're tired of the CTers why don't you just ignore them. Posting crap like this makes you look like a bunch of nay-sayers and not a bunch of sceptics.

I don't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also treat anything issued by the government with a degree of scepticism.

I don't believe the CTers have any grounds to suggest a CT. I would also suggest that none of you know for sure, enough about 9/11 to be confident enough to 'debunk' the CTers in this mocking way.

Moreover, it is a type of logical fallacy, which is ironic because Dr Fungi points out the appeal to numbers/authority fallacy in his sig then proceeds to use the fallacy of appeal to ridicule/strawman himself.
Click to expand...
Chill. Get a sense of humour.
 
Yea, what a party-pooper.

Besides, it wasn't "appeal to ridicule." It was just ridicule. I think we can all agree the Truthers need and merit huge quantities of ridicule.
 
yeah, if you beleive that the bush admin rigged up a special secret CCTV feed and ran it to a school in florida where they installed equipment to view the feed just so the president coudl watch the plane hit the towers before going into the classroom to feign brain freeze for 20 minutes you dont need to be dubunked, you need to be slapped on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper
 
defaultdotxbe said:
yeah, if you beleive that the bush admin rigged up a special secret CCTV feed and ran it to a school in florida where they installed equipment to view the feed just so the president coudl watch the plane hit the towers before going into the classroom to feign brain freeze for 20 minutes you dont need to be dubunked, you need to be slapped on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper
Click to expand...

Ow! That hurt!
 
defaultdotxbe said:
and rummy saying f93 was shot down and pentagon was hit by a missile
Click to expand...

I think that was more of an instance of the use of jargon to a non-technical audience. From a military-technical perspective, a missile did hit the Pentagon and I would be very much surprised if it were not referred to as such in many Pentagon reports - at least as a previously-qualified pronoun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom