It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which PLANE did Bush claim to have seen on 9/11!!???

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy


That's funny that you would call someone retarded. Look who's the one that is jumping to conclusions and taking things out of context. Congratulations on an over active imagination. He didnt say anything he shouldn't have. He said exactly what he said and it makes perfect sense.


Perfect sense?

Please stop making excuses for a grown man in trying to tell us what HE MEANT to say in his speech. If he can't conduct his speech in a truthful manner, without contradictions, in every speech, he don't need to lead anyone since someone could be misled. There's a thing about those who story flip-flopped from all the "he didn't mean it that way", like we need an interpretor to understand what HE REALLY MEANT TO SAY.

Sorry but I can't follow that type of leadership.

Finicky at best.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I guess you missed the actual quotes from him? Here they are again for the reading impared.

"And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

"I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on..."

You can try to think of excuses for this liar but the quotes speak for themselves. How does "I saw an airplane hit the tower" equate to "I saw tv coverage saying that a plane hit the building"? Please enlighten us Snoopy.


But clearly he did not mean he literally saw the first plane hitting the footage, just the news coverage of it.


Clearly? He clearly states that he saw the plane hit the building.....not just once...but twice.

[edit on 8/16/2006 by Griff]



No I didn't miss the quote. He saw an airplane hit the tower. He saw the news. It's simply his means of speech. Perhaps it would have been more clear had he put the word "that" in the sentence, but it's just the way he talks. Maybe people don't talk like that where you are from. but I have travelled a lot and it's very common. Especially in the south and places like texas. Same reason people use the word "ain't". It's shorter and easier to say. Same reason eh didn't use some long detailed concise sentence.

I have seen some good conspiracy arguments, but this is definitely not one of them. This is a clear case of trying to turn nothing into something. It's also funny how the president is constantly butchering the english language and made fun of (sepecially by me). But suddenly when it works in favor of a conspiracy theory, the CTers suddently expect him to use perfect english and that he is suddenly well pronounced.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya
Perfect sense?

Please stop making excuses for a grown man in trying to tell us what HE MEANT to say in his speech. If he can't conduct his speech in a truthful manner, without contradictions, in every speech, he don't need to lead anyone since someone could be misled. There's a thing about those who story flip-flopped from all the "he didn't mean it that way", like we need an interpretor to understand what HE REALLY MEANT TO SAY.

Sorry but I can't follow that type of leadership.

Finicky at best.


You're the one telling us what he meant to say. And you are the one making excuses for a conspiracy theory. I can't disagree with you on his leadership skills. but you are the one picking and chosing when and when not he is to be taken literally or not. You probably have no problem with his pronunciation of the word "nuclear" because it doesn't make for a good conspiracy. But suddenly when an opertunity comes along, he must be astute and speak perfect engligh and be perfectly concise about his wording. Dispite that would be completely irregular for him.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy


You're the one telling us what he meant to say. And you are the one making excuses for a conspiracy theory. I can't disagree with you on his leadership skills. but you are the one picking and chosing when and when not he is to be taken literally or not. You probably have no problem with his pronunciation of the word "nuclear" because it doesn't make for a good conspiracy. But suddenly when an opertunity comes along, he must be astute and speak perfect engligh and be perfectly concise about his wording. Dispite that would be completely irregular for him.


Simple question............(refer back to post 1 on page 1)

You're the one playing an interpretor by telling us what words are missing from his speech, his dialect from Texas, etc. I'm from Atlanta, and I can tell you if someone just cutting short on a word and when someone is saying what they are saying. You tend to make excuse for a grown man who get more excuses than a little bit like he just learning how to speak. How are you gonna to lead the nation when you can't even speak correctly?

Picture that.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Snoopy I assume you haven't actually watched the footage, you should you wouldn't be disagreeing.

There are actually 2 separate bits of footage taken on 2 separate occasions, I'm trying to find the 2nd one.

There is no mistaking what he was saying or what he mean't, and then to actually repeat himself, how can you actually say that he mean't someghing else?

I hope to have the 2nd bit of footage at the weekend as its actually on my desktop and I'm on my laptop at the moment.

The strangest thing about this, is his claim to have watched it in the school, when he was actually in his limo at the time, I suppose he could have watched a replay of some sort at the school, but he can't have seen what he claims else he would be lying, and what reason would he have to lie?

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Koka]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya

Simple question............(refer back to post 1 on page 1)

You're the one playing an interpretor by telling us what words are missing from his speech, his dialect from Texas, etc. I'm from Atlanta, and I can tell you if someone just cutting short on a word and when someone is saying what they are saying. You tend to make excuse for a grown man who get more excuses than a little bit like he just learning how to speak. How are you gonna to lead the nation when you can't even speak correctly?

Picture that.


I am not the one playing interpreter. I am the one who isn't trying to twist his meaning into something else. I have lived in Atlanta for plenty of time to know. Just like if someone says "I saw you got promoted". They don't mean they literally watched the person get promoted. It's the same thing here. The only difference is in this case it makes for a good conspiracy so people take the ball, run with it, and try to milk it. Of course when he says 'nuclar', no one sits there and wonders if he is talking about some kind of new technology since no one has ever heard of 'nuclar', they just understand it's his way of speach.

How are you gonna lead the nation if you can't speak correctly? Very badly aparently. But everone knows his constant butchering of the english language is the constant butt of jokes. Just not in this case. Suddenly, it's literal.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Snoopy I assume you haven't actually watched the footage, you should you wouldn't be disagreeing.

There are actually 2 separate bits of footage taken on 2 separate occasions, I'm trying to find the 2nd one.

There is no mistaking what he was saying or what he mean't, and then to actually repeat himself, how can you actually say that he mean't someghing else?

I hope to have the 2nd bit of footage at the weekend as its actually on my desktop and I'm on my laptop at the moment.

The strangest thing about this, is his claim to have watched it in the school, when he was actually in his limo at the time, I suppose he could have watched a replay of some sort at the school, but he can't have seen what he claims else he would be lying, and what reason would he have to lie?

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Koka]


I have seen all the footage. And I am in complete disagreement. I hate the guy more than anyone else, but I have never seena more clear cut case of making something out of nothing. He does this kind of stuff on a daily basis and everyone is all too familliar with it. Yet when it comes to an instance when it can be taken as a conspiracy, suddenly everything is overlooked and interpreted differently. I think it's a simple case of people misunderstanding whart he is saying ebcause they want so badly to believe there is a conspiracy (which isn't to say this means there is or irn't one).



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
So what country are you from that they take


And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on,


or


well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on


and turn it into "And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw that an airplane hit the tower" (instance number 1)

and

"well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen that this plane fly into the first building" (instance number 2).

Because even in Butt-Cheese Oklahoma - state bordering his land of language - we don't speak like that. That would be like telling a trooper (while describing a car wreck) "I had seen that this car drive into the next one."

Doesn't make too much sense, does it?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
snoopy I'm more than willing to concede the debate as long as I am given sufficient reasoning, its all I wanted on my original thread about this very subject, I'm sure its what we all want to some extent.

I understand fully what he was saying and have no problem interpreting his unique terminology, but these statements do not need any form of interpretation.

Please give your reasoning for him saying it on 2 separate occasions.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Koka]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Please give your reasoning for him saying it on 2 separate occasions.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Koka]


You guys seem to think that I am implying it was a mistake asin he said the wrong thing. But I don't think that at all. I think that's jsut the way he talks. just as in he always mis pronounces the word 'nuclear', he will constantly speak in his redneck draw.

This is half the reaosn people (including myself) think he's so stupid. it's his dialect more than anything. I think every time he gives a speach, they should be playing cotton-eyed joe in the background. It would give things a better context.

I could be wrong, but given te scenario, this does not appear to be a red flag at all since it becomes simple speculation.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
He saw that the first plane had hit the building.
I think thats what he was trying to say.

So strange, one day everyone make fun of his lingustic gymnastics.
then another day, people parse his words to death.

Which is it?
Does he talk good,
or does he speak well?

I honestly think this is grasping..
the one audio clip (the windows Medai) has him stuttering a bit..right at the crucial moment.

the other real audio clip, I could not play, but will do it later..
But I did notice this on the CNN link, which was a transcript of the real audio link, has a disclaimer at the top..that it was a rough transcript, and not promised to be completely accurate.

I'll reserve total judgement for now..But I think it's just his way of speaking..



[edit on 16-8-2006 by spacedoubt]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I have watched this again and again trying to hear what you are hearing, and it ain't happening.

As much as I appreciate what you guys are saying, to me its "grasping" to re-interpret what he says quite clearly.

And this debate will have no end as long as this re-interpretation continues.

I have already had this debate on my original thread (link in my first post on this thread), and really don't want to go into depth again especially as the information is already available for all to read.

If you heard him say something different, then so be it, its a shame the President of the US requires a interpreter in order to be understood by the people he represents.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
It is 100% CRYSTAL FREAKING CLEAR what he said... TWICE! The stuttering and stammering are classic signs of "trying to figure out your lie" for someone without a speech impediment. Ask a shrink.

There can be no denying his words and what they meant.

So...

1. HE IS A LIAR.

or

2. HE IS DELUSIONAL.

Either way... IMPEACH AWAY!

To the "re-interperperting apologists"... He siad "the SKY IS RED." TWO TIMES and you think he just mispoke?

What are you trying to protect here?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
That's funny that you would call someone retarded. Look who's the one that is jumping to conclusions and taking things out of context. Congratulations on an over active imagination. He didnt say anything he shouldn't have. He said exactly what he said and it makes perfect sense.


How am I jumping to conclusions? It's simple. If the timeline the government gave is correct, the only plane he could have seen was the first plane. How could he have seen the first plane? Private feed. He said it not once but TWICE that he saw the first plane hit. If he claims he thought it was a "horrible accident" then clearly he saw the first plane. How could you see the second plane hit, see the smoke coming from the first tower, and think it was just an accident? Im sorry dude but you've been fooled by Bush. That's pretty sad.



[edit: shortened quote]
Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/17/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Snoopy,

I don't get it.

If you are saying that you are not making excuses for Bush and that you hate him more than anyone on the planet, then how can you say that he didn't really mean to say that he "saw" a plane?


That analogy you displayed in your post is irrelevant. Mispronouciation isn't what Bush was doing. But if you want to believe that it's something else other than what came out of his mouth, so be it.

Sad.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on


Theres only one way "to see (or saw)" when the TV's on...and thats with your eyes.

So, the question is, How do you see something that hasn't been shown to the public yet?

[edit on 17-8-2006 by xEphon]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon

And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on


Theres only one way "to see (or saw)" when the TV's on...and thats with your eyes.

So, the question is, How do you see something that hasn't been shown to the public yet?

[edit on 17-8-2006 by xEphon]


whos side are you on? are you saying he is a lying bastard or not? either way..the answer is..a private view.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Obviously, I think hes lying since he couldn't actually see the plane hit before there was footage of it. So, he either had prior knowledge to the event and got his timetable all screwed up or the voices in his head told em, either way, the guy lost a few.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
Obviously, I think hes lying since he couldn't actually see the plane hit before there was footage of it. So, he either had prior knowledge to the event and got his timetable all screwed up or the voices in his head told em, either way, the guy lost a few.


I think he had a private view. I mean really, it's the government. Would it really be that hard to set up a private view? they could use something as simple as a street camera. It's not that hard. He probably had a private feed and he stumbled on his words, AGAIN. But people dismiss it as him being dumb, yes, he's dumb, but when there's so much evidence against the government's story and the fact he said this same thing twice, there's no way it can be dismissed as just a speech error.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Hey if you wanna believe that he had a "private view" of an airplane hitting the WTC at the exact same time that it was happening, and still chose to talk to kids at school, then thats on you.
I'll stick with the lying and dumb theory.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join