Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?
- Thread starter Non Believer
- Start date
He messed up;
He could only see what the rest of us saw; now go mess it up some more by making up what it means.
He could only see what we saw. We have seen both towers being hit; what day, what time, when, where, did he mess up?
I have see both planes hit the towers. I do not remember which time and what day. I watched tv live and replay.
But to make up CT on the messed up talk of anyone is pure junk.
So do you want to use this as an inside job; have at it. Weak evidence for anything.
I assume he meant we saw the first tower hit! cause we all did; we saw the first tower hit; dumb pilot talk to me, but I saw the first tower hit;
translation; i saw where the first plane hit the tower; it was kind of like a plane hole!
I saw the first tower HIT (this is the truth and more junk) he said "I saw an airplane hit the tower" ; we are both retarded!
Last edited:
Whether he did or did not has no significance.
A single aircraft hits a building. Major tragedy. Big disaster. People are paid to fix that and clean up the mess. Even the President of the USA is not expected to deal personally with such an event.
Two aircraft hit two adjacent buildings in the same city within an hour.
Different scenario entirely. An act of war by an unknown aggressor. The President of the USA needs to think fast. The current incumbent is hampered in this respect by innate lack of ability. Deer in the headlights, know what I mean?
We tend to forget that during the time between the first and second impact, those who knew about the first one assumed it was an accident.
Only after the second crash did we realise that was not the case at all.
A single aircraft hits a building. Major tragedy. Big disaster. People are paid to fix that and clean up the mess. Even the President of the USA is not expected to deal personally with such an event.
Two aircraft hit two adjacent buildings in the same city within an hour.
Different scenario entirely. An act of war by an unknown aggressor. The President of the USA needs to think fast. The current incumbent is hampered in this respect by innate lack of ability. Deer in the headlights, know what I mean?
We tend to forget that during the time between the first and second impact, those who knew about the first one assumed it was an accident.
Only after the second crash did we realise that was not the case at all.
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
You know what's funny. Lots of things are funny, but I know one thing that is funny. Isn't it funny how all the deniers are allowed to twist and distort every word and every piece of evidence until it fits into their safe little image of reality?
We can present video footage...of people/persons involved in 9/11 who clearly state WORD FOR WORD...NO INTERPRETATION NEEEEEEEDEDEDDED - something that contradicts the official story, yet these boneheads will just shrug it off like it's nothing.
It's just a waste of time talking to these types...they're lost...they are deluded...they are hopeless. Hopeless...yes... that is a great word to describe them. They will never believe 9/11 was an inside job unless that becomes the official story.
We can present video footage...of people/persons involved in 9/11 who clearly state WORD FOR WORD...NO INTERPRETATION NEEEEEEEDEDEDDED - something that contradicts the official story, yet these boneheads will just shrug it off like it's nothing.
It's just a waste of time talking to these types...they're lost...they are deluded...they are hopeless. Hopeless...yes... that is a great word to describe them. They will never believe 9/11 was an inside job unless that becomes the official story.
CurtC
Illuminator
The quote from Rumsfeld, as printed in Parade magazine, is:
This was from a phone interview, and apparently wasn't the best connection as evidenced by the inaudible part.Rumsfeld said:
The whole "and the missile" thing makes no sense. But what if they heard one word wrong? What if Rumsfeld actually said "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, as the missile to damage this building..."? I think that's what happened.
Not entirely true. Chief Pfeiffer (of the Naudet's documentary fame) who made the first call about the crash, advised Manhattan dispatch that it could be a terrorist attack.
It would be funny if you had some facts! Got some?
No one can be this dumb; you are just joking right?
An e-mail exchange between moi and the ever-patient Dr. Frank Greening:
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald Wieck
To: Frank Greening
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:45 PM
Subject: Weighing In
Dear Frank,
This is a silly question and, for you, an extremely simple one, but I hope you'll indulge me. My girlfriend (the, heh-heh, gorilla my dreams) and I were watching the remake of 'King Kong' when she turned to me and asked how much the giant ape would weigh. I replied that if we assume that a 6-foot tall gorilla weighs 500 lbs., to obtain the weight of a 24-foot tall gorilla, we multiply 500 by 4 cubed. That's right, isn't it? Would a gorilla 4x larger than a normal-sized one really weigh 32,000 lbs. (16 tons)?
Best Regards and Happy New New Year,
Ron
Dear Ron,Thanks for the crazy e-mail. But it actually raises a whole bunch of interesting questions about building REALISTIC scale models of the Twin Towers. This turns out to be very difficult to do....
The way I would address your question is something like this:
The first assumption to make is that the density of the large and small gorillas remains constant.
Now density, rho = mass, M, divided by volume, V
So rho1 = M1/V1 and rho2 = M2/V2
So with constant density, M1/V1 = M2/V2
or, M1/M2 = V1/V2
Now for a gorilla represented as a cube of side d,
V1/V2 = d1^3/d2^3 , where the notation ^3 means raised to the power 3.
So, for your example, M1/M2 = 6^3/24^3 = 216/13824 = 1/64 = 1/4^3
Now if you assume the gorilla was more like a cylinder than a cube you will find you get the ratio of a radius squared times a height. But both the height and radius are scaled by a factor of 4, giving a ratio of 4^3 or four cubed for the case of a cylinder.
And if you think about it, regardless of the shape of the gorilla, the scaling factor in your problem is always four cubed.
In other words, Ron, I believe your answer is correct!
By the way if you scale a 400 meter tower weighing 400,000 tonnes down to a model 1 meter tall, it should weigh 6.25 kg. But if you make the model 2 meters tall it should weigh 50 kg...... in this case we have 2^3 or eight as our scaling factor.
So, Ron , wishing you
A VERY
HAPPY NEW YEAR,
Frank
Last edited:
I think it's quite funny that you claimed it was impossible for steel trusses to fail due to fire, and then when I posted two highly detailed technical papers (Edinburgh and Sheffield Universities) demonstrating that it was indeed possible, you ran away. Then put me on ignore.
So yes, it is just a waste of time talking to you. You are lost, and deluded, and hopeless. You twist the story to suit your own deluded views and ignore anyone who shows them for the ill-formed rubbish that they are.
So there.
Someone may have to repost this in order that the eejit can read it. The good thing is, though, that he'll then put you on ignore too........
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
Here, allow me.
Oh, I'm sure he's reading your posts anyway.
By the way, 28th Kingdom, don't forget to answer the many open questions in this thread.
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,662
Personable:
I think to ridicule, like to err, is human. There are lots of things that are human nature. That is not to justify them, as many things we as a species do are abhorant, but to start ass cracking with the whip simply because the people here are ridiculing is a little silly, especially since you have been a member here for 2 months, and clearly have seen how things go here. There is as much sensible debate and discussion of the issues as there is ridicule. The debunkers here listen to the same old drivel time and time again, so frustration and bitterness sneak in, just as they would with anyone who had to listen to the same damn lies repeated to them day in, day out. When something new and interesting comes about, you can bet these guys here will debate it into the ground.
TAM
I think to ridicule, like to err, is human. There are lots of things that are human nature. That is not to justify them, as many things we as a species do are abhorant, but to start ass cracking with the whip simply because the people here are ridiculing is a little silly, especially since you have been a member here for 2 months, and clearly have seen how things go here. There is as much sensible debate and discussion of the issues as there is ridicule. The debunkers here listen to the same old drivel time and time again, so frustration and bitterness sneak in, just as they would with anyone who had to listen to the same damn lies repeated to them day in, day out. When something new and interesting comes about, you can bet these guys here will debate it into the ground.
TAM
Yes, 28thKingdom, faced with a choice between Bush admitting to millions of viewers that he watched something he could not POSSIBLY have watched or Bush misspeaking, you will opt for the former. Nobody expects you to tell the truth--as a fantasist, that just isn't your "thing." But, secretly--in your heart of hearts, when you're reduced to pretending that Bush confessed to a vast conspiracy, including video footage unavailable to anyone anywhere, as opposed to accepting that Bush was, well, talking like Bush, don't you sometimes feel almost too silly to continue? I mean, just how much of a horse's ass can you make of yourself before the idea of closing up shop becomes irresistible?