Bush is always stumbing over his words on any subject, and books have been compiled of his "mis-speaking" also he is quite unable to think on his feet. This does not make him complicit in 9/11. His inept performance in continuing to read the famous goat story when told about 9/11 is just another instance of this, and goes to show he had no idea about it in advance.
What's the problem? He saw the second plane on the TV outside the classroom, thought it was a terrible accident, moments later, in the classroom, he was told it was not an accident, it was an attack.
Bushwhacker,
The problem is, the second plane had just hit when the guy comes over and whispers in his ear, it happened while he was sitting in that chair, not while he was outside the classroom in his car.
I don't think Bush bullshitting about how he heard about the events is compelling evidence of anything though and doesn't count as evidence for an inside job, just compelling evidence that politicians make up media friendly stories about how things transpired which don't relate to reality in any way all the time.
What IS compelling is the fact that despite the threat he represented to those children he sat in the classroom for an extended period of time, then gave a press conference surrounded by kids about the event, then drove off casually.
On the flip side in Cheney and others accounts they were wisked out of the room whereever they were by the SS and taken to bunkers.
This is infact the usual proceedure, but not with the president? _________________
What's the problem? He saw the second plane on the TV outside the classroom, thought it was a terrible accident, moments later, in the classroom, he was told it was not an accident, it was an attack.
what rubbish again from the man who will excuse anything.
if bush saw the second plane hit how did he think it was just a terrible accident when the dumbest of the dumb knew america was under attack as soon as the second plane hit?
why would bush need to be told in the classroom that america was under attack? it would of been obvious if he had seen the second strike whilst the other tower was up in flames dont you think?
he was talking about seeing the first strike and your just trying to twist it to excuse the evidence that says otherwise.
Yes, maybe he was just bull-* about when he heard, I would not trust him for a moment.
The fact that he just sat there like an idiot for twenty minutes, then got back to the plane and spent the rest of the day scuttling around Air Force bases like a frightened rabbit shows yet again how unable he is to think on his feet, but is surely indicative that he had no idea what was happening. Think of the opportunities for grandstanding if he had known what was about to happen, dramatic pictures of him being rushed into his car, a heroic flight back to Washington, despite the danger, a story of a strong and resourceful President taking firm control at a time of national emergency, instead he has had to spend all his efforts since trying to cover up how ineffectual he was and endured mockery over the goat story.
Bushwhacker,
I think that you are over looking the fact that SS proceedure exists. The fact that the SS did not automatically act as they are trained to has nothing to do with Bush's intellectual limits, it is clear from the video he did not "stand them down"... they simply did nothing.
Would you at least agree that suggests they knew he was in no danger? _________________
What's the problem? He saw the second plane on the TV outside the classroom, thought it was a terrible accident, moments later, in the classroom, he was told it was not an accident, it was an attack.
what rubbish again from the man who will excuse anything.
if bush saw the second plane hit how did he think it was just a terrible accident when the dumbest of the dumb knew america was under attack as soon as the second plane hit?
why would bush need to be told in the classroom that america was under attack? it would of been obvious if he had seen the second strike whilst the other tower was up in flames dont you think?
he was talking about seeing the first strike and your just trying to twist it to excuse the evidence that says otherwise.
Now you are talking rubbish, how could he possibly see the first strike on TV when it was not broadcast?
He was not sitting down watching the news, he was walking to the classroom, he may only have caught a glimpse and seen nothing of the first tower, or he may be completely bull-nonsense, as i said above.
What's the problem? He saw the second plane on the TV outside the classroom, thought it was a terrible accident, moments later, in the classroom, he was told it was not an accident, it was an attack.
what rubbish again from the man who will excuse anything.
if bush saw the second plane hit how did he think it was just a terrible accident when the dumbest of the dumb knew america was under attack as soon as the second plane hit?
why would bush need to be told in the classroom that america was under attack? it would of been obvious if he had seen the second strike whilst the other tower was up in flames dont you think?
he was talking about seeing the first strike and your just trying to twist it to excuse the evidence that says otherwise.
Now you are talking rubbish, how could he possibly see the first strike on TV when it was not broadcast?
He was not sitting down watching the news, he was walking to the classroom, he may only have caught a glimpse and seen nothing of the first tower, or he may be completely bull-nonsense, as i said above.
yes bull*itting = lying.
why would he do that then bushwacker? what type of man would lie about something like that on purpose knowing the sensitivity of the subject and what that day meant to many?
Bushwhacker,
I think that you are over looking the fact that SS proceedure exists. The fact that the SS did not automatically act as they are trained to has nothing to do with Bush's intellectual limits, it is clear from the video he did not "stand them down"... they simply did nothing.
Would you at least agree that suggests they knew he was in no danger?
I would agree that the Secret Service appear not to have immediately identified any danger to the President, but why should they? As far as they knew at the time, two planes had been flown into the WTC in New York, a thousand miles away, they did not know that other planes were on their way to Washington.
why would he do that then bushwacker? what type of man would lie about something like that on purpose knowing the sensitivity of the subject and what that day meant to many?
Any politician, and particularly a nasty piece of work like Bush, who had made himself look so stupid on that day. I ask again, if he had prior knowledge, why would he make himself look stupid, when he could have made himself look good?
Last edited by Bushwacker on Tue May 08, 2007 11:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Bushwhacker,
I think that you are over looking the fact that SS proceedure exists. The fact that the SS did not automatically act as they are trained to has nothing to do with Bush's intellectual limits, it is clear from the video he did not "stand them down"... they simply did nothing.
Would you at least agree that suggests they knew he was in no danger?
I would agree that the Secret Service appear not to have immediately identified any danger to the President, but why should they? As far as they knew at the time, two planes had been flown into the WTC in New York, a thousand miles away, they did not know that other planes were on their way to Washington.
Exactly. They didn't know. So they assume safety instead of danger? That is not how the SS would usually act.
As we know from Cheney's own televised claim that the second the second plane hit he was literally whisked out of the room and into a bunker, no discussion no "sir we have to leave" just grabbed him and bundled him to safety.
We have similar testimoney from even lower members of the Bush admin.
The SS would assume danger and err on the side of caution. Not assume since they didn't know a plane was heading for where Bush was publicly known to be that he was probably OK to hang around for the best part of an hour. _________________
Bushwhacker,
I think that you are over looking the fact that SS proceedure exists. The fact that the SS did not automatically act as they are trained to has nothing to do with Bush's intellectual limits, it is clear from the video he did not "stand them down"... they simply did nothing.
Would you at least agree that suggests they knew he was in no danger?
I would agree that the Secret Service appear not to have immediately identified any danger to the President, but why should they? As far as they knew at the time, two planes had been flown into the WTC in New York, a thousand miles away, they did not know that other planes were on their way to Washington.
Exactly. They didn't know. So they assume safety instead of danger? That is not how the SS would usually act.
As we know from Cheney's own televised claim that the second the second plane hit he was literally whisked out of the room and into a bunker, no discussion no "sir we have to leave" just grabbed him and bundled him to safety.
We have similar testimoney from even lower members of the Bush admin.
The SS would assume danger and err on the side of caution. Not assume since they didn't know a plane was heading for where Bush was publicly known to be that he was probably OK to hang around for the best part of an hour.
So what is your suggestion, the Secret Service agents were also all in on the plot, and the wonderful plotters who conceived this flawless plan, told them to act entirely against their normal procedures? Why would they do that?
why would he do that then bushwacker? what type of man would lie about something like that on purpose knowing the sensitivity of the subject and what that day meant to many?
Any politician, and particularly a nasty piece of work like Bush, who had made himself look so stupid on that day. I ask again, if he had prior knowledge, why would he make himself look stupid, when he could have made himself look good?
i dont know if he had prior knowledge and it dosnt matter because the clip dosnt prove that. it proves what he said didnt fit what the offical version claimed and therefore someone is lying.
why lie if there is nothing to hide?
this is just one of many things that dont add up and you wonder why people want a new investigastion
So what is your suggestion, the Secret Service agents were also all in on the plot, and the wonderful plotters who conceived this flawless plan, told them to act entirely against their normal procedures? Why would they do that?
What happened there does suggest that the SS agents assigned to Bush that day knew he was in no danger, beyond that it's all speculation.
I'm not forming theories here, I am just saying there is a marked difference between the way the SS acted with Cheney and others, and these specific agents acted with Bush, and it can't be ignored.
That said, I hardly think this is top of the pile of evidence and its not really something I can be bothered talking about much.
I actually partially agree with some of what you have said on this thread, I don't think Bush saying "when I saw the fist plane hit on tv" rather than "when I heard the first plane had hit" is evidence of anything much, in the same way I can't stand the way Silverstein saying "pull it" has somehow been transformed into a major piece of evidence when in reality its meaningless.
I just don't think you can wave away this complete ignoring of proceedure by those specific SS agents, on that specific day. It happened, it was highly unusual, and it means something. _________________
why would he do that then bushwacker? what type of man would lie about something like that on purpose knowing the sensitivity of the subject and what that day meant to many?
Any politician, and particularly a nasty piece of work like Bush, who had made himself look so stupid on that day. I ask again, if he had prior knowledge, why would he make himself look stupid, when he could have made himself look good?
i dont know if he had prior knowledge and it dosnt matter because the clip dosnt prove that. it proves what he said didnt fit what the offical version claimed and therefore someone is lying.
why lie if there is nothing to hide?
this is just one of many things that dont add up and you wonder why people want a new investigastion
To get public opinion in favour of a new investigation what is needed is solid evidence that shows that 19 Arab hijackers did not take over four planes, or solid evidence that elements of the US administration knew in advance about the attacks but did nothing. Evidence that a politician is giving his actions a favourable gloss or indulging in spin of some sort or another will simply reinforce public opinion about politicians.
So what is your suggestion, the Secret Service agents were also all in on the plot, and the wonderful plotters who conceived this flawless plan, told them to act entirely against their normal procedures? Why would they do that?
What happened there does suggest that the SS agents assigned to Bush that day knew he was in no danger, beyond that it's all speculation.
I'm not forming theories here, I am just saying there is a marked difference between the way the SS acted with Cheney and others, and these specific agents acted with Bush, and it can't be ignored.
That said, I hardly think this is top of the pile of evidence and its not really something I can be bothered talking about much.
I actually partially agree with some of what you have said on this thread, I don't think Bush saying "when I saw the fist plane hit on tv" rather than "when I heard the first plane had hit" is evidence of anything much, in the same way I can't stand the way Silverstein saying "pull it" has somehow been transformed into a major piece of evidence when in reality its meaningless.
I just don't think you can wave away this complete ignoring of proceedure by those specific SS agents, on that specific day. It happened, it was highly unusual, and it means something.
I agree that it is surprising that the Secret Service did not whisk Bush away immediately, but the simplest explanation is that they did not at first assess the situation as dangerous for him. The explanation that they had actual knowledge that he was in no danger introduces other anomalies that cannot be explained.
This is rather typical of many aspects of 9/11, for instance at first sight the hole in the Pentagon does not appear as big as one would expect, but is understandable on further examination, and other evidence shows that Flight 77 did strike the pentagon. The alternative explanation that it was not hit by a big Boeing introduces very many more anomalies than it answers. The conspiracist case about 9/11 is simply a compilation of similar "evidence" there is nothing solid in it at all after all this time, and it is fast taking on the characteristics of a cult where belief is all, and facts are discounted. Combined with the very wild theories now being produced, this can only lead to it being marginalised.
The conspiracist case about 9/11 is simply a compilation of similar "evidence" there is nothing solid in it at all after all this time, and it is fast taking on the characteristics of a cult where belief is all, and facts are discounted. Combined with the very wild theories now being produced, this can only lead to it being marginalised.
There's actually an abundance of evidence of widespread foreknowledge of attacks within the intelligence community within and outside the US, especially at the FBI where numerous low-level agents were ignored and their investigations hampered from above. It saddens me that this aspect of 9/11 is so widely disregarded, perhaps because it supports the LIHOP case, or perhaps because it requires reading.
I recommend Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's The War on Truth, particularly chapters 7 to 9 for evidence of foreknowledge and the inexplicable impediments placed in the paths of people who could have put the hijackers in custody if they were only listened to or even (in the case of Coleen Rowley) simply allowed to do their jobs. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
or solid evidence that elements of the US administration knew in advance about the attacks but did nothing
Have you talked to the Jersey Girls recently?
I have never talked to the Jersey girls at all, have you? Are you coming to the LIHOP side and the view that all the "evidence" of demolition, beam weapons and cruise missiles is rubbish as well as NPT?
The conspiracist case about 9/11 is simply a compilation of similar "evidence" there is nothing solid in it at all after all this time, and it is fast taking on the characteristics of a cult where belief is all, and facts are discounted. Combined with the very wild theories now being produced, this can only lead to it being marginalised.
There's actually an abundance of evidence of widespread foreknowledge of attacks within the intelligence community within and outside the US, especially at the FBI where numerous low-level agents were ignored and their investigations hampered from above. It saddens me that this aspect of 9/11 is so widely disregarded, perhaps because it supports the LIHOP case, or perhaps because it requires reading.
I recommend Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's The War on Truth, particularly chapters 7 to 9 for evidence of foreknowledge and the inexplicable impediments placed in the paths of people who could have put the hijackers in custody if they were only listened to or even (in the case of Coleen Rowley) simply allowed to do their jobs.
Yes, the LIHOP case does not get much of an airing here, certainly. I should really have said "....did not nothing, and this cannot be explained by incompetance or lack of resources." If only one warning of a terrorist attack is received and not acted upon at all, that is suspicious. If 100 warnings are received and cannot all be investigated through insufficient resources, the failure to investigate a particular one is much less suspicious, even if that one was the one out of 100 that was accurate. To really point the finger, you need to show that the warning was so specific that no reasonable person could possibly have ignored it, and that is not easy.
Hampering from above may be suspicious or may be explainable because the superior believes that enquiry to be a waste of time that could be more profitably used on other matters.
It was the fear of the security services being shown to be incompetent that probably led the administration to oppose and obstruct the 9/11 Commission. Good luck to the Jersey Girls in pursuing this.
Thanks for that, gruts. The above comments also apply. This level of detail shows up as nonsense the idea that al Qaeda is simply a database and does not exist as an organisation, or that OBL is a CIA asset.
Thanks for that, gruts. The above comments also apply. This level of detail shows up as nonsense the idea that al Qaeda is simply a database and does not exist as an organisation, or that OBL is a CIA asset.
Osama Bin Laden was always a CIA asset
The Bin Laden family are investors in the Bush family businesses.
These are facts beyond dispute.
Bush saying he saw the first crash on a monitor and saying he thought it was a bad pilot to me shows how stupid you are for supporting the guy and his family.
A real president should have immediately gone to his bunker and took control of the situation instead he put the schoolkids at potential risk.
But i guess his dad and cheney probably thought it was best to keep the buffoon out of their way to get on with the crime they were committing.
Just like the coward Bush is when he avoided serving in Vietnam. But he is not too much of a coward to drop depleted uranium bombs on innocent civilians while poisoning his own troops. Bush is a war criminal and luckily in the USA over 100 million people want him impeached.
Apart from you BushTosser. _________________
Thanks for that, gruts. The above comments also apply. This level of detail shows up as nonsense the idea that al Qaeda is simply a database and does not exist as an organisation, or that OBL is a CIA asset.
Osama Bin Laden was always a CIA asset
The Bin Laden family are investors in the Bush family businesses.
These are facts beyond dispute.
Bush saying he saw the first crash on a monitor and saying he thought it was a bad pilot to me shows how stupid you are for supporting the guy and his family.
A real president should have immediately gone to his bunker and took control of the situation instead he put the schoolkids at potential risk.
But i guess his dad and cheney probably thought it was best to keep the buffoon out of their way to get on with the crime they were committing.
Just like the coward Bush is when he avoided serving in Vietnam. But he is not too much of a coward to drop depleted uranium bombs on innocent civilians while poisoning his own troops. Bush is a war criminal and luckily in the USA over 100 million people want him impeached.
Apart from you BushTosser.
What is the point of continuing to demonstrate that you are too thick to put forward any coherent argument? Simply stating your opinion and saying it is a fact beyond dispute impresses no one, and misrepresenting what I say demonstrates once again the fundamental approach of most of you ironically named "truthseekers" - misrepresentation to support a pre-conceived opinion. You are simply members of a cult.
To really point the finger, you need to show that the warning was so specific that no reasonable person could possibly have ignored it, and that is not easy.
I think a reasonable person who looked through the information in the above link would conclude that having received so many warnings (often very specific and detailed), they should have done something to prevent the attacks instead of doing nothing - as well as the fact that they blatantly lied over and over again after 9/11 when they claimed they hadn't received any warnings.
It's fairly obvious that given the nature of the warnings that certain lines of investigation that could have been pursued at minimal cost and manpower were not, and that raises questions.
I'm talking in particular about the investigations of flight schools. In the light of specific warnings about al-Qaeda operatives hijacking planes (and using them as weapons) the first place you would look would be the flight schools, particularly those flight schools where multiple Arab males were being trained. This was recommended in the infamous Phoenix Memo.
Coleen Rowley's team had picked up Moussaoui under immigration law but under suspicion of being a terrorist (due to his keenness to learn to fly - but not land - 747s). The withholding of a routine FISA warrant on Moussaoui's belongings (including his computer) by higher ups within the FBI - the very people who would have had the best information regarding possible terror threats to the US, such as David Frasca at the Radical Fundamentalism Unit/Usama bin Laden unit, and despite Rowley's repeated protestations, is simply incredible and inexcusable. Frasca was promoted after 9/11.
Then there's the charmed life of Mohammed Atta, in the USA on a tourist visa, violating that visa by undergoing flight training, leaving and re-entering the country on the same expired visa, getting caught speeding, all despite the fact that he was a suspected terrorist who'd reportedly been under surveillance in Hamburg by the CIA in 2000 (where he was observed buying large quantities of chemicals) and was identified by the DIA through data mining project Able Danger by early 2000 as part of what they termed the "Brooklyn Cell".
cooperative research wrote:
Bergen Record columnist and reporter Mike Kelly says, “The connect-the-dots tracking by the team was so good that it even knew Atta conducted meetings with the three future hijackers. One of those meetings took place at the Wayne Inn. That’s how close all this was—to us and to being solved, if only the information had been passed up the line to FBI agents or even to local cops. This new piece of 9/11 history, revealed only last week by a Pennsylvania congressman and confirmed by two former members of the intelligence team, could turn out to be one of the most explosive revelations since the publication last summer of the 9/11 commission report.” [Bergen Record, 8/14/2005]
Link
Able Danger was dismantled in spring 2001. Its data and documents/findings were destroyed in 2004.
None of this seems to make sense in the context of an intelligence community being warned in very specific terms about possible hijackings and targeting of buildings in Washington and New York - a picture that was well summarised in the August 6 PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States".
Then there's Atta's associates - with whom he gambled, got drunk and snorted coke.
Quote:
"He called certain people he met at the flight school, and it was mostly those of Arabic background, his brothers...I know he called Wolfgang one. Him and Wolfgang were very close, they were very tight with each other, they went everywhere together. When he came into the picture they were together all the time.
These guys had money flowing out their ass, excuse my language but they never seemed to run out of money. I mean they were just tossing money left and right, it was just like 'oh my god'. And they had massive supplies of cocaine. whenever they ran out they'd go to the flight school"[Florida Flight Training Center, which trained alleged hijacker Ziad Jarrah and enrolled Ramzi bin al-Shibh]
Atta's girlfriend Amanda Keller in interview with Daniel Hopsicker.
Wolfgang Bohringer (a German) turned up in 2006 in the South Pacific attempting to set up a flight training school.
Daniel Hopsicker wrote:
Authorities have uncovered a plot to set up a flight training school in the Pacific nation of Kiribati, the man behind it having had links to September 11 mastermind Mohammed Atta. Since the plot emerged, Kiribati had asked for Australia's help to fight terrorism, ABC radio reported today.
“Wolfgang said he not only knew Mohamed Atta, he liked him. Atta was his friend, a nice guy, and it was too bad he had to die,” stated one of the islanders who contacted us.
Couple this with Atta's alleged funding by Ahmed Umar Sheikh Saeed (aka Omar Saeed Sheikh amongst other aliases) the LSE educated money man for al-Qaeda who reportedly (by the Times of India and The Wall Street Journal, confirmed by the FBI) wired $100,000 to Atta on the orders of ISI chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad (who resigned shortly after this revelation was made public).
Sheikh was recently outed by President Pervez Musharraf in his book "In The Line of Fire" as an MI6 agent...
Draw your own conclusions. Does coke snorting, vodka guzzling playboy Atta more closely resemble an Islamic fundamentalist or an agent of the CIA? _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
typical.
