Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[Bell]

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.

Because there is no evidence whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside job, hence there was no camera broadcasting live pictures to a TV where Bush saw the first plane hit. And therefor he could not have seen the first plane hit the tower before he entered the calssroom.

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.

Bush said he watched the coverage before he entered the classroom.

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.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

No need to thank me. On the other hand, the deniers still fail to provide REAL EVIDENCE of an inside job. So why would we then think there was one?

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.

We only say this about stuff the deniers make up or take out of context to proof an inside job. Which the deniers still fail to proof.

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.

Been there, done that.

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.

Assumption, not evidence.

 

[Brainster]

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.

I have spent several hours every day since May looking into 9-11 conspiracy theories. I honestly thought that somewhere along the line debunking would get harder; that there were people like the Scholars that would have much more sophisticated arguments than the Loose Change boys. It has not happened, but I have certainly examined the evidence, as have many others hereabouts and elsewhere.

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.

Because it's just another example of him engaging mouth without putting brain in gear.

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.

He is accountable to the late night talk show hosts for what he says.

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.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Besides, you cannot prove a negative. Prove that aliens have never visited Earth.

On the partisan issue, you will find that many people here are not supporters of the Bush Administration. Perry Logan and Gravy, in particular.

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.

It is less ridiculous than believing that the conspirators would create and execute this tremendously complex and intricate plot and then blow it by making statements that amount to obvious confessions.

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.

Yes, it would. While we're on the subject of things that make a little more sense, wouldn't it make a little more sense that he misspoke than that he blew it and gave away the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan, ever, ever?

 

[ktesibios]

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.

No. The statements "this utterance is not evidence that Bush was involved in the 9/11 attacks" and "the administration has given a consistent and truthful account of the days events" have no logical connection at all. It isn't necessary to defend both to defend one.

The first is supported by the fact that an alternative interpretation exists which has equal or greater explanatory power, is more plausible and requires less multiplying of entities than the conspiracist's preferred interpretation. The second is 100% irrelevant to the meaning of your little video clip.

Stop trying to conflate the rejection of your paranoid conspiracy theories with support for the Bush administration. It's nonsense and a cheap rhetorical trick.

You're being laughed at across the entire political spectrum. Haven't you noticed?

 

[uk_dave]

You're being laughed at across the entire political spectrum. Haven't you noticed?

How very true.

 

[Architect]

1- The actual physical models that NIST tested did not collapse, and had only mild sagging in the floor trusses.

(i) Collapse isn't necessary, as the deflection caused by the sag results in failure of the external load bearing envelope.

(ii) Have you read the Edinburgh and Sheffield University Papers? Are you aware (say) of the Arup view of the failure?

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.

(iii) So?

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.

(iv) What's your evidence for that?

4- Computer models for NIST's calculations are not made available for the public. Many proffesional engineers have complained of this.

(v) Do you have any evidence of this apart from the one NCE article (which is superceded by others)?

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.

(vi) Speaking as someone who studied structures at university level, I don't see your point here. Progressive collapse under the imposed loadings is exactly what we would expect. Are you claiming that the lower structure should have resisted the loadings? I should warn you that this would be quite at odds with normal structural expectations.

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.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I have seen far to many in the CT movement taking a partial view, culbably misunderstanding structural or fire engineering issues, or taking as granted the writings of (say) Jones or Griffiths.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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?

You seem not to be aware of the 9/11 Commission Report (which was linked to above) and the NIST report on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, and the upcoming report on the collapse of WTC7.

The 9/11 Commission Report actually exposed some serious problems in communication between intelligence agencies within the U.S. government. It wasn't a bed of roses.

How do any of these constitute a lack of explanation from our government?

 

[uk_dave]

(vi) Speaking as someone who studied structures at university level, I don't see your point here. Progressive collapse under the imposed loadings is exactly what we would expect. Are you claiming that the lower structure should have resisted the loadings? I should warn you that this would be quite at odds with normal structural expectations.

But.... but....but...but.....

Dylan 'leader of the pack' Avery asserts:

The laws of physics dictate that twenty floors cannot destroy ninety.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1944&st=30

hmmmmmmmmm who to believe......

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I find that most C.T's are more willing to argue the facts of the case...

Yikes!

...while the so called skeptics claim it is so ridiculous why bother with the facts.

Er, okay.

 

[Oliver]

@General Question:

In german it´s pretty usual to say: "I saw this accident or crash",
even if we did not saw when it happend. Isn´t this kind of describing
an accident/crash the same in english?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Dylan 'leader of the pack' Avery asserts:

The laws of physics dictate that twenty floors cannot destroy ninety.

My oh my oh my.

 

[uk_dave]

@General Question:

In german it´s pretty usual to say: "I saw this accident or crash",
even if we did not saw when it happend. Isn´t this kind of describing
an accident/crash the same in english?

Yes, but in this case Bush is giving the impression that he watched the first crash happen live on TV, which is what has gotten the woowoo's panties in a bunch.

But then he has also said.....

Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die.
-- Dubya's attempt to explain that he understands the tough sacrifices being made in the Iraq war, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/latestadditions.phtml

So, Bush can see on TV a plane crashing into the WTC towers as it happens AND can talk to dead people.

 

[Horatius]

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.

Where has anyone said there is no need for accountability upon the administration? Pretty much everybody here thinks the government has to provide some explanation for what happened on 9/11. The difference is, we don't expect them to explain away a bunch of made-up fantasies while they do it. We want them to explain what we actually saw happen. And they did that. The NIST report isn't "tangential" to this discussion, it's one of the major factors. It was one of the means by which the government explained what happened.

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.

Every other point has been discussed to death. On this point, I'll just mention that it's only a valid critisism if you already believe in CTs. Why else would you complain that people experienced in analysing a building collapse were included on the panel of experts?

Seriously, give me one non-CT reason not to use these guys.

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.

A mass generalization based on massive evidence, total evidence. Look up any threads on this topic here, you'll see it.

 

[Mercutio]

@General Question:

In german it´s pretty usual to say: "I saw this accident or crash",
even if we did not saw when it happend. Isn´t this kind of describing
an accident/crash the same in english?

Yes. "I saw this morning that Saddam was hanged." If I were speaking to you, that would be one of many perfectly acceptable ways of telling you that I had seen the news reports of his execution. If I were writing, I would probably be a bit more precise.

 

[Alt+F4]

So, Bush can see on TV a plane crashing into the WTC towers as it happens AND can talk to dead people.

Well Bush is trying to set up some sort of post-White House career. John Edward better watch out!

Here's my favorite Bushism:
"I'm occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the second term." --Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005

 

[Oliver]

Yes, but in this case Bush is giving the impression that he watched the first crash happen live on TV, which is what has gotten the woowoo's panties in a bunch. *snip*

But i don´t understand the CT´ists argument. Maybe he really
saw the images of the damaged tower and just said: "I saw
the crash when it happened". Maybe it´s a translation-thing
because it´s not surprising at all in german to describe it this
way. But thank you for your reply.

ETA: Thank you, too - Mercutio. It´s strange how CT´ists
make things up to support their conspiracies...

 

[Architect]

But i don´t understand the CT´ists argument. Maybe he really
saw the images of the damaged tower and just said: "I saw
the crash when it happened". Maybe it´s a translation-thing
because it´s not surprising at all in german to describe it this
way. But thank you for your reply.

ETA: Thank you, too - Mercutio. It´s strange how CT´ists
make things up to support their conspiracies...

It doesn't quite translate that way in this case, and that's what's got the woowoos in a twist. But as the others have pointed out, it's no big surprise given the man's other fantastic quotes.

Incidentally, it would be acceptable to say "I see that Saddam was hanged this morning" or "This morning I saw that Saddam was hanged".

I'd explain this in German, but frankly it's too much work.....

 

[Oliver]

It doesn't quite translate that way in this case, and that's what's got the woowoos in a twist. But as the others have pointed out, it's no big surprise given the man's other fantastic quotes.

Incidentally, it would be acceptable to say "I see that Saddam was hanged this morning" or "This morning I saw that Saddam was hanged".

I'd explain this in German, but frankly it's too much work.....

*lol* It is indeed not surprising after some pretty funny
statements of him. I guess i have to study his original
statement of him again to understand the differences.

 

[Horatius]

"Ich Bein Ein Berliner", anyone?

 

[Oliver]

"Ich Bein Ein Berliner", anyone?

PAh! Berlin is a country of it´s own - and i have more problems
to understand their slang as talking in english.

 

[Alt+F4]

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 could 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

This post made me think....what if all the stupid conspiracy theories were thought out logistically? Not only would the man-power grow the conspiracy into the tens of thousands it would so clearly show how ridiculous the CTers are.

Take for example the CTers slant on the phone calls made from the planes. They try to get away with a quick one-liner, that it was "sophisticated voice-morphing technology". So that means the conspirators would have to:

1. Obtain the technology.
2. Learn how to use the technology.
3. Determine way in advance which passengers would make the fake calls.
4. Obtain 10 minute voice samples of each of the callers.
5. Make sure those persons got on the planes that day.
6. Obtain the phone books of the choosen passengers and figure out who they would call.
7. Coordinate the making of the fake calls with various phone companies.
8. Know so many personal details of everyone involved as to not raise suspicion.