Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[pomeroo]

So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.
Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

So, what's your verdict, NB? Do you lean toward the interpretation that Bush revealed the existence of a vast--so vast as to be mathematically impossible-- conspiracy guilty of an unprecedented crime, or do you allow for the possibility that he misspoke?

Don't be coy, now. We know your answer.

 

[stateofgrace]

It's not important for a nation to examine what its leader did during the the most critical hours our nation ever faced. Analysis like what did he say and do are clearly too one sided for consideration. Instead we simply add words to what was said and presto we have the meaning we like. But you guys are the fact based evidentiary types correct? Of course we have direct quotes from John Skilling, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, and many others that you guys tell us just aren't true. What an easy strategy. Just say it ain't so.
Also what is the official story of what he knew that day? Isn't it that he was only informed of the second plane hitting, and had not been informed on the first? If so, he is still contradicting that account. He is clearly describing what he did before he went in the classroom. For those of you who couldn't remember what plane crash was shown live, and which wasn't, I recommend memory supplements.
So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.
Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

Are you being serious?

Really?

Did you hear what Bush said after he saw the plane hit the Tower? “That must be a terrible pilot". What is to explain? Bush is stupid, it is self explanatory.

Please stop reading conspiracy into inane comments.

 

[Bell]

It's not important for a nation to examine what its leader did during the the most critical hours our nation ever faced. Analysis like what did he say and do are clearly too one sided for consideration. Instead we simply add words to what was said and presto we have the meaning we like. But you guys are the fact based evidentiary types correct? Of course we have direct quotes from John Skilling, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, and many others that you guys tell us just aren't true. What an easy strategy. Just say it ain't so.
Also what is the official story of what he knew that day? Isn't it that he was only informed of the second plane hitting, and had not been informed on the first? If so, he is still contradicting that account. He is clearly describing what he did before he went in the classroom. For those of you who couldn't remember what plane crash was shown live, and which wasn't, I recommend memory supplements.
So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.
Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

NO!! The burden of prove is on the deniers side. You lot claim a conspiracy. Proof to me what happened on 9/11 was an inside job. Give me your best evidence. Now. Thanks much.

 

[Larry Lovage]

But you guys are the fact based evidentiary types correct? Of course we have direct quotes from John Skilling, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, and many others that you guys tell us just aren't true. What an easy strategy. Just say it ain't so.

My understanding is that nobody just "says it ain't so", they have conclusively proved that the testimonies are erroneous, based on physical and documentary evidence and the majority of other testimony. I don't know all the details (I've never heard of the Skilling stuff for instance), but I was in an argument on a forum once about the Richard Clarke testimony and the question was "Why was Richard Clarke's testimony ignored by the Commission, when it contradicted what was said by other officials yadayada", and the answer was, "I think the Commission ignored his testimony because it was contradicted by the testimony of all those other people." Truthers sometimes have an endearingly screwy idea of what constitutes valid evidence.

What annoys me most about the YouTube extract from whatever truther pseudodoc included the Bush quote, is that the only way they can make Bush seem more devious is by forgetting their own and everybody else's reactions on the day of the incident. I also thought it was a bad accident until the second plane hit. I also may have said things about the first plane hitting the WTC without literally having seen it.

(Also, since he said that he hadn't gone into the classroom yet, presumably he was watching regular television somewhere in the school. So how was he supposed to have seen different stuff to the rest of us?)

Point of Information - it wasn't a Secret Service guy that came in to tell him about the second plane, it was Chief of Staff Andy Card. Ohhh, for a Leo McGarry or CJ Cregg to really be in charge....

 

[firecoins]

NO!! The burden of prove is on the deniers side. You lot claim a conspiracy. Proof to me what happened on 9/11 was an inside job. Give me your best evidence. Now. Thanks much.

The 9/11 Truth movement can not do that. They make a stronger case with a few unprovable "what if" scenarios.

 

[Cylinder]

So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?

No - because there are more possible options than a consistent and truthful account or the attacks being undertaken by the US government. For you to defend a claim that the US government undertook the attacks, you need to provide evidence that supports that assertion.

 

[Bell]

I also thought it was a bad accident until the second plane hit. I also may have said things about the first plane hitting the WTC without literally having seen it.

I arrived home about 9:25 EST that day. I didn't know about the attacks at that time. First thing I did when I got home, was read my e-mail. A friend posted an e-mail about two planes hitting the WTC, and included a BBC News screencap of the burning towers. First thing I thought was that two planes collided and crashed into the towers.

 

[beachnut]

It's not important for a nation to examine what its leader did during the the most critical hours our nation ever faced. Analysis like what did he say and do are clearly too one sided for consideration. Instead we simply add words to what was said and presto we have the meaning we like. But you guys are the fact based evidentiary types correct? Of course we have direct quotes from John Skilling, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, and many others that you guys tell us just aren't true. What an easy strategy. Just say it ain't so.
Also what is the official story of what he knew that day? Isn't it that he was only informed of the second plane hitting, and had not been informed on the first? If so, he is still contradicting that account. He is clearly describing what he did before he went in the classroom. For those of you who couldn't remember what plane crash was shown live, and which wasn't, I recommend memory supplements.
So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.
Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

It sounds like you are making a religion of hate out of stupid statements; the president and you had the same information on 9/11.

You are not as smart as the president?

 

[qayak]

Well the Bush thing is not without precedent. Neil Armstrong's version of what he said when he stepped on the Moon is different to what the world heard. He had ages to practice his, and I am sure he will go his grave convinced he really said the missing word.

Does that invalidate the Moon Landings? No

So then I am not sure a missing word validates a 911 conspiracy

Maybe he did afterall.

http://katv.com/news/stories/0906/365473.html

 

[Brainster]

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.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

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

Congrats on conquering the strawman that has slain the rest of us.

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.

Yes, and none of us knows for sure enough about evolution to be confident enough to debunk creationists, and none of us knows for sure enough about the supernatural to debunk faith healers and none of us knows for sure enough about mathematics to prove 1+1=2.

Yawn.

 

[eeyore1954]

Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

When George Bush mispeaks it is not news. One board I used to post on ( I think is was the Young Turks) had a special thread devoted to entering misstatements from him.

Here is a different thread about them.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

Here is a recent quote from him.
"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006

Here is another one
This morning my administration released the budget numbers for fiscal 2006. These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th." --George W. Bush, on the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2006

Is this proof of the NWO conspiracy of slowing down the Earths orbit around the sun which will eventually cause February to need 30 days. Bush knows it is underway and he accidently let the cat out of the bag with this statement.


And George Bush is by no means alone in this world when it comes to mistatements. This morning I called my youngest daughter by her older sisters name is this proof that they are actually clones? Or that sometimes you say things that are not exactly correct?

 

[beachnut]

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.

You know a good round of facts would help a CT nut case when they post.

Simple facts; I image some here can debunk a lot. I have yet to see any expert on the CT side come up with facts to prove anything.

When someone does come up with a new topic people will get serious and down to business. But Bush talking about what he saw is simple junk.

Unless someone has proof of secret government live recordings to the presidents brain then we all can relax; because like the rest of us on 9/11 he was just sitting around doing what was on the schedule!

But he could have a chip in his head to receive live video; we (not me) stuck a chip in a dogs brain to pull off signals back in the 80s at the lab! Check it out. So maybe there is a CT. Maybe they learned from Nixon's mistake; why go small when you can get the big one!

Did the president have a chip with live video imbedded in his head?

But since we are talking about talk; why be so factual about the fiction built by any stupid little thing on 9/11. The president's statement is just talk and if a CT guy wants to build his lies on it they only point out how bad they are at grasping at straws and how easy it is to poke fun at the lack of brains on the CT side; brains under the bias of unknown and untold agendas.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Bushisms

Bushisms

Bushisms

etc, etc, etc (845,000 hits)

But for once he reveals the tWOOf!!?!!?? How convenient.

See how many non-sarcastic references to Bush's "wisdom", "wise words" or "great quotes" you can find anywhere.

 

[PerryLogan]

Blurting out clues

Apparently, it is far easier for Truthers to believe the bad guys blurt out clues than it is for the rest of us. They are always saying the bad guys like to spill the beans in public...but their stories always sound lame to the rest of us. You could probably compile a huge list of alleged "confessions" by the perps, starting with Silverstein's "pull it" statement and going on from there.

It's always the same pattern:
1) the statement never sounds like a confession to anyone but conspiracy guys;
2) interpreting the statements as confessions always involves bizarre assumptions (i.e., that "pull it" means to demolish a building; that GWB is a lucid man never given to misstatements; that the conspirators are very careless people); and
3) the conspiracy guys accuse everyone else in the world of being stupid for not perceiving the obvious fact that the perps like to blurt out clues.

 

[Architect]

Too many James Bond films, I expect......

 

[Bell]

It's also unbelievable how they cherry pick the part where he says "I saw the first plane hit the tower" but leave out "I thought what a terrible pilot" (paraphrasing)

So IF there was a conspiracy, and Bush watched the first plane crash into the tower, why would he think the pilot was terrible? Wasn't the pilot supposed to hit the building?

 

[Horatius]

It's also unbelievable how they cherry pick the part where he says "I saw the first plane hit the tower" but leave out "I thought what a terrible pilot" (paraphrasing)

So IF there was a conspiracy, and Bush watched the first plane crash into the tower, why would he think the pilot was terrible? Wasn't the pilot supposed to hit the building?

Ah, but what you don't see is, he did misspeak, but it was in the "I thought what a terrible pilot" statement.

He meant to say "I thought what a terrorist pilot"*

Because they so love to blurt out clues, you see.




*with all due respect to Superman II. The original one, not the Donner remix, which probably doesn't include this line, from what I understand, not having seen it yet.

 

[Non Believer]

I know its a black and white world for most of you. Either you are a C. T nut or a beholden skeptic, but do you ever consider that people might not fall into neat groups. Brainster seems to suggest to this, but then apparently gets sleepy from this much thought. Believe it or not you can be curious about the events of that day without having reached firm conclusions about what the implications are. But that black and white world of conclusion before examination is so much more comforting.
With this in mind, I would suggest that much of America would find these comments of Bush disturbing. Ya they might think that Bush misspoke again, but a good percentage would question why a quote like this is not more widely known.
None of you seemed to respond on what the official story is. When was Bush first notified that any plane had hit a tower? But I guess if Bush can't be held accountable for what he says, we can't hold him accountable for what he hears either so I guess that wouldn't count as well. Kind of reminds me of a story about a monkey with hands on his face.
As to your insistence that it is up to the CT side to prove the case, why? Do you not believe that it is up to an administration to explain the events of that day first? Do you really believe that if it had been a democratic administration that you would not be insisting that they prove they were not negligent.
Some of you claim that nothing Bush says could be a hint of a conspiracy because why would he say things to incriminate himself. This idea is taken further on other 9-11 subjects with the claim that if anything comes out that supports a conspiracy it cannot be true because conspirators wouldn't have allowed such info to come out. This is really a beautiful piece of sophistry. I don't even know which of the logical fallacies this is. Perhaps they didn't list it since it is so ridiculous. But its logic states that we can never know of a conspiracy because conspirators would never make mistakes that allow their conspiracy to be shown. Ya right.
Also on the 'pull it' comment by Silverstien, are you denying that that is jargon used in the demolition industry, And if you were refering to pulling fireman, wouldn't "pull them" make a little more sense.
Finally, I would assume that at least some of you are aware that 'plausible deniability" became an admitted strategy of the U. S intelligence services under Eisenhower. And isn't it a perfect fit to get bumbling presidents (such as the present one and good old Ronnie) to carry out this strategy.

 

[Architect]

As to your insistence that it is up to the CT side to prove the case, why? Do you not believe that it is up to an administration to explain the events of that day first? Do you really believe that if it had been a democratic administration that you would not be insisting that they prove they were not negligent.

"Proving" a case is something of a misnomer; rather it is a case of assembling the evidence, and then testing the various hypotheses against this until the most likely solution is identified.

1. The NIST report is rather comprehensive. It reviews the available evidence in great detail, reviews various different options, and arrives at a conclusion based solely on the evidence.

2. Your average CT theory pulls together inconsistent and invariably less than comprehensive evidence, then leapfrogs to a solution. There is no academic, balanced analysis or attempt to approach the collapses in an even handed manner.

If CTers wish to be taken seriously, then they need to produce a sufficiently well argued and supported case. They must also be prepared to defend that case from proper scrutiny. Until they do, then they might as well claim it was an alien death ray from Wolverhampton.

 

[Non Believer]

Architect, at least you do admit there is some level of accountability upon the administration which is really my only point in this regard. I do not want to get too tangential with the NIST report here (perhaps we can take it up somewhere else), but here are the common criticisims of it.
1- The actual physical models that NIST tested did not collapse, and had only mild sagging in the floor trusses.
2- the makeup of the NIST team included the same individuals that were at Oklahoma city, and that were on the FEMA commision. Namely Corley and Thornton engineering.
3- The computer models they used exaggerated any reasonable expectation of temperatures within the towers. No samples from the deris from the towers showed signs of temps above 600 F, and models of fire temps for office combustibles do not exceed this either.
4- Computer models for NIST's calculations are not made available for the public. Many proffesional engineers have complained of this.
5- No calculation for global collapse. They did make a cryptic calculation for collapse of the floors damaged by plane impact and fire, but they just assume that the whole tower would collapse after the initial floors did.

2- As to your second point, it is clearly a mass generalization. I find that most C.T's are more willing to argue the facts of the case, while the so called skeptics claim it is so ridiculous why bother with the facts. This too is a generalization, but is based on personal experience.