|
Post by frenat on Mar 4, 2007 12:58:41 GMT -4
frenat, whether it fits into your theories or not, Bush clearly said twice that he saw a plane strike the first tower. He didn't say he heard about a plane hit the tower, he saw it hit the tower. It's possible he confused in his mind seeing the video of the second plane with hearing about the first plane. It has nothing to do with his grammar, it has more to do with his memory of the events. I agree that they probably kept him out of the loop. Apparently Cheney was doing most of the decision-making from his bunker, such as making sure there were no timely intercepts to complicate matters. No, he didn't. What he said both times could be interpreted either way. Especially the first time as just the addition of the word "that" completely changes the meaning as in "I saw "that" a plane hit the tower." How do you know he didn't forget a single word? How do you know for sure he isn't just recalling that he saw the news footage as the rest of the country did? One way requires a huge leap of logic and the other just requires he to be an idiot. Of course nobody is surprised here that you and Turbonium favor the leap of logic. It is highly possible and very likely that the TVs that are found in every schoold across America were tuned to the news and he saw the news coverage. That you are insisting it can only be interpreted your way is very telling. That both times he also had lots of ums and ahs is also indicative that he just sucks at talking. And there is still no reason why he should have to have a private live feed.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 4, 2007 16:55:17 GMT -4
No,what he said is also easily interpreted as he saw the news coverage that showed the first plane had hit the WTC. It is also not clear where the TV was that he saw it on. It is very likely it was one of the multitude of TVs that they have in schools nowadays. It was huge news and was on every news channel so it is very likely he would have seen it on a TV outside the classroom but inside the school. Very unlikely that he have see the coverage of the first plane flying and hitting the WTC from a regural TV channel before he entered that Florida classroom at 9 a.m. because the only known video of that event spent the day at Ground Zero, in the videographer's camera. It was first broadcast about 15 hours after it happened.video www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.htmltimeline of the events 911blimp.net/cached/firsttold.htmWhen Flight 11 hits the WTC at 8:46, Bush's motorcade is crossing the John Ringling Causeway on the way to Booker Elementary from the Colony Beach & Tennis Resort on Longboat Key. [Washington Times, 10/8/02]
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Mar 4, 2007 17:32:51 GMT -4
If you had paid attention, that is not what I said he would have seen. Again, both statements can be interpreted as he saw the news footage of the first tower on fire when all they knew was a plane had hit. His comments following the statements in question seem to indicate this is the case. However, since the statements can be interpreted both ways and there is no way to prove one over the other this whole discussion is useless.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 4, 2007 17:36:11 GMT -4
Um....every timeline that I've read describing what the President was told puts the realization that "America was under attack" after the SECOND plane struck. The first was considered a horrible accident. The second strike made it abundantly clear there was a plot. So regardless of what plane the President appears to be talking about in the excerpts above, his chief of staff came in because of the _second_ plane. That makes it extremely likely that what he saw was, in fact, the second plane, and he was informed directly after seeing it that there were now two confirmed impacts and his people believed there was an attack (of unknown size and parameters) underway. Which is why he was whisked away by his security the moment he allowed them to do so.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 4, 2007 18:19:36 GMT -4
It's like so many other issues about 9/11, the GCT's will treat it as an isolated, separate event. Option one - it's a script - is summarily dismissed. Option two - it's a simple case of simultaneous media errors - is instantly accepted.
You are forgetting another likely scenario. That they both came about the information from the same source. A source that was in error.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 4, 2007 18:32:05 GMT -4
You are forgetting another likely scenario. That they both came about the information from the same source. A source that was in error.
In fact this is the most likely senario, and the one that was offered, and subsequently ignored.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 4, 2007 21:47:16 GMT -4
You are forgetting another likely scenario. That they both came about the information from the same source. A source that was in error.In fact this is the most likely senario, and the one that was offered, and subsequently ignored. I'll give you two guesses as to why it was ignored, and the first one doesn't count
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 4, 2007 21:50:33 GMT -4
911:InsideJob said:
How does it work that you set off explosives in the basement, and the building starts collapsing 70 or 80 floors up? It's like punching the guy at the front of a queue, and knocking out the guy at the back.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 4, 2007 22:38:11 GMT -4
911:InsideJob said: How does it work that you set off explosives in the basement, and the building starts collapsing 70 or 80 floors up? It's like punching the guy at the front of a queue, and knocking out the guy at the back. The towers were brought down by a combination of devices. The major support columns were weakened, probably with thermite. Then the upper floors were brought down by a cascading synchronized sequence of detonations, most likely of the conventional CD type. That was the only way 3 steel frame buildings like the WTC towers could be brought down at those speeds leaving practically nothing standing, not even the cores. Take a close look at this video if you don't already believe that WTC7 was a CD: zoom on WTC7 squibs
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 4, 2007 23:37:56 GMT -4
could be brought down at those speeds
You mean the 16-20 seconds it actually took, right?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 5, 2007 4:07:12 GMT -4
The towers were brought down by a combination of devices. The major support columns were weakened, probably with thermite. Then the upper floors were brought down by a cascading synchronized sequence of detonations, most likely of the conventional CD type. That was the only way 3 steel frame buildings like the WTC towers could be brought down at those speeds leaving practically nothing standing, not even the cores. You mean, conventional CD as in large, highly audible (and visible!) explosions, pre-weakening of the structure, charges set in specific places so as to allow gravity to do most of the work, and of course conventional explosives and firing trains? Oh, wait. It was none of the above. This was flashless, near smokeless, silent, meticulously-timed, super-potent miniaturized explosives hidden on each and every floor; explosives so high-tech they left no detectable residue, so small they could be hidden on occupied floors, so powerful they didn't even need structural access (much less pre-weakening), and so stable that you could fly an airplane into the floor and drench it in flaming aviation fuel without setting them off or otherwise harming them.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 5, 2007 4:09:36 GMT -4
I've still got this Monty Python-like routine going through my head.
Anonymous phone caller "WTC-7 has just collapsed."
BBC reporter "I didn't see another building collapse."
APC "It was number 7 that collapsed. You'd better report it now."
BBC "Which one would that be, again?"
APC "That building over there."
BBC "You mean the one that's still standing?"
APC "Yes, that one. Report that it collapsed."
BBC. "Why? It's still standing."
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 5, 2007 10:15:42 GMT -4
This was flashless, near smokeless, silent, meticulously-timed, super-potent miniaturized explosives hidden on each and every floor; explosives so high-tech they left no detectable residue, so small they could be hidden on occupied floors, so powerful they didn't even need structural access (much less pre-weakening), and so stable that you could fly an airplane into the floor and drench it in flaming aviation fuel without setting them off or otherwise harming them.
Don't forget the immunity to one of the noisier RF environments you could imagine - thousands and thousands of cell phones, radios of all types, and remote television transmitters. I don't know about detonators, but I've driven through blasting zones and the signs say to shut down cell phones and CB radios, so there is at least some danger of inadvertent triggering (RF energy being coupled into the detonator circuit?) How exactly do you guarantee this ultraprecise sequence of detonations in such an environment?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 5, 2007 21:49:05 GMT -4
I dunno the exact sensitivity to RF of the blasting cap itself, although the Army warned us to keep radios away from them when they weren't protected by having their leads clipped together. The RF links to all those thousands of charges, tho, would be something else!
Hey...if the latest "I'm an engineering professor, honest I am" is right about the inertial resistance, doesn't this require that not only do we sever all structural members but vaporize the floor as fully and conveniently as the incoming meteor in a bad movie?
(For some reason I'm remembering a really silly scene on the short-lived TV show "For Love and Honor." The girl rigger who was trying to be accepted by the rest of the airborne unit she was in "heroically" went BACK to a misfired charge on a training demo mission, and twisted the wires in the electrical firing chain back together........during a lighting storm. Okay, I was watching this from the dayroom of a combat engineer company of the 82d Airborne. You can only imagine the laughter that followed! There's just so, much, wrong, with this picture.....)
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Mar 15, 2007 17:05:52 GMT -4
|
|