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.

 

Hypothetical question to skeptics about Bush's 'Pet Goat' reading event

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You posit that the reading even might have been scheduled for an hour, but just before that you claim that the 9.30 press announcement had been scheduled. How can both be true?

"Hypothetical" question. "If" the event was scheduled for an hour.


Why if it is stage managed would they allow it to look like he was stalling?

Perps behind "stunningly complex" conspiracies don't make mistakes?


What would you think if Bush had immediately left? Would it not seem suspicious, as though he already knew the extent of what was going to happen?

No, it's what I would expect any innocent Commander in Chief to do, go see what's going on and if they need to give out any orders ASAP to, ya know, save lives.




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Perps behind "stunningly complex" conspiracies don't make mistakes?


I'd be surprised if they made one like that.

You're saying that they wanted the world to watch as Bush was informed of the strike, which he knew about in advance, and they didn't even bother to make him look statesmanlike, or even shocked. Why would they do that?

They are locked into an ambitious and audacious financial and political mass murder, a spectacle of, as you say, stunning complexity and daring. And they can't even make the President look convincing? Even though they are putting him on TV on purpose, presumably with the intent of him looking convincing? Why not just have him out of the way of the cameras?




No, it's what I would expect any innocent Commander in Chief to do, go see what's going on and if they need to give out any orders ASAP to, ya know, save lives.


I wouldn't have been surprised if he'd left. But it would suggest he knew more about the conspiracy, not less, if he had. He didn't, according to the OS, know about the other flights yet, so why would he be out there making decisions about shooting them down? He would have needed incredible foresight to do that. Indeed, the kind of foresight that comes with inside knowledge...



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're saying that they wanted the world to watch as Bush was informed of the strike

No, I never speculated they wanted the world to watch Bush being informed of the attacks per se, but to be in front of cameras so there would be no question of where he was and what he was doing when the second hit happened.


which he knew about in advance, and they didn't even bother to make him look statesmanlike, or even shocked. Why would they do that?

First, just because I think he was in on it, I never suggested how much he knew of the details. Second, they can't make Bush act perfectly they way they wanted. Bush's acting skills would only be as good as they are. It's not like he had a chance for a retake.


TAnd they can't even make the President look convincing? Even though they are putting him on TV on purpose, presumably with the intent of him looking convincing?

So you agree he didn't look convincing?!


I wouldn't have been surprised if he'd left. But it would suggest he knew more about the conspiracy, not less, if he had. He didn't, according to the OS, know about the other flights yet, so why would he be out there making decisions about shooting them down? He would have needed incredible foresight to do that. Indeed, the kind of foresight that comes with inside knowledge...

Did Andrew Card say "America's under attack" or "We just got attacked, but it's all over now"?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
No, I never speculated they wanted the world to watch Bush being informed of the attacks per se, but to be in front of cameras so there would be no question of where he was and what he was doing when the second hit happened.


So he'll be in front of the cameras, but they don't consider that most of the world will be interested in his reaction? These are some very unintelligent super-intelligent conspirators.

And why would you want people to be sure of where he was? In case he was flying the plane himself?


First, just because I think he was in on it, I never suggested how much he knew of the details. Second, they can't make Bush act perfectly they way they wanted. Bush's acting skills would only be as good as they are. It's not like he had a chance for a retake.


So why have him on camera? Or why not have him briefed with a plan and a speech. Something like - walk out of the classroom in a measured but deeply concerned manner, pretend to chat to us for a bit, then do a piece to camera about terror and the resilience of the US people. Assure everyone they're in safe hands. Mention OBL.

To me that would look a lot more suspicious than an obvious incompetent straining through the fog of his tiny brain to work out what to do.



So you agree he didn't look convincing?!


Absolutely. If you mean that he looks completely unsure of what to do and a bit pathetic.


Did Andrew Card say "America's under attack" or "We just got attacked, but it's all over now"?


Still would have looked more odd to me if he'd gone immediately into "statesman" mode.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Since there is not a precise time for when Bush left the room, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the reading event was scheduled from 9am to 10am, a full hour.

Bush was told America's under attack at about 9:07 am.

My question for you skeptics is, with this hypothetical scenario, about how long would Bush have had to stayed reading in that room until you think he was purposely stalling (as in he was in on it and that's why he was stalling)?

Was revisiting this thread and realized no skeptic really answered it. Funny.

There is no right or wrong answer. Just curious of your opinion.

Your answers only require a time (e.g. 5 min, 10 min, 30 min, 45 min, etc). Or if you think if Bush stayed the hypothetical full hour and that wouldn't make you suspicious, just say that.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


You obviously didn't read my posts properly. I answered it some time ago. I then asked a question which you didn't answer, ironically.

You also failed to say why it is more suspicious for someone who knows about such an attack to appear grotesquely unprepared for it. Would you not find it more suspect if he had leapt into full "statesman" mode and started decrying OBL? And then made a grave speech about other planes being on their way but America remaining staunch? I certainly would.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You obviously didn't read my posts properly. I answered it some time ago. I then asked a question which you didn't answer, ironically.

That's because your answer was a lie. "26 min." Who says 26 min? Honest people would have answer "about 25 min" or "about 30 min." Try answering honestly and maybe you'll get a response back.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Okay.

About 25 minutes.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
I'm beginning to think you didn't really want an answer at all.

And that you certainly can't answer the other questions posed to you.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ATH911
 


Okay.

About 25 minutes.

And another lie!

Maybe if you stop lying I'll answer your questions.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
What evidence do you have that I'm lying? About as much as you have for a faked crash site I imagine - ie none.

You asked a question - a pretty ridiculous one - and when I answered it you ignored me, called me a liar and refused to answer a perfectly reasonable counter-question.

Way to go.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

Because it was obvious you gave me a BS answer when you said you would think Bush's action would make you suspicious if he stayed reading for "26 min." I'm surprised you didn't add seconds on the end to make it more obvious you gave a BS answer.

How is it a ridiculous hypothetical question? Because you're afraid it will cast suspicion on Bush's non-action?

Now as to your question....


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What would you think if Bush had immediately left? Would it not seem suspicious, as though he already knew the extent of what was going to happen? For example, if he immediately started discussing shoot down options, wouldn't that be odd, given that he had no way of knowing other planes are in the air? Wouldn't you perhaps suggest that this might be evidence that he understood the extent of the plot a little TOO well?

How would we even know if he immediately started discussing shoot down options? If he was overheard discussing shoot down options before he got out of the classroom, then yes.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

Because it was obvious you gave me a BS answer when you said you would think Bush's action would make you suspicious if he stayed reading for "26 min." I'm surprised you didn't add seconds on the end to make it more obvious you gave a BS answer.

How is it a ridiculous hypothetical question? Because you're afraid it will cast suspicion on Bush's non-action?


It's ridiculous because you're asking how suspicious it would be if he did something that he didn't do. And I assume you're asking it so that you can suggest that the actual length of his wait seems odd. When in fact an immediate leap into action would be far more suspicious.

And even if he did delay for longer that would hardly be cast-iron proof of any kind of involvement in conspiracy. As I pointed out, delay suggests a lack of readiness, a lack of understanding and preparedness. Uncertainty. In fact quite the reverse activity of someone who is an insider and therefore ready to act.




How would we even know if he immediately started discussing shoot down options?


Because I'm suggesting that it would be odd if he did this immediately in public. Suggesting preparedness. Thus suggesting complicity.


If he was overheard discussing shoot down options before he got out of the classroom, then yes.


So it would appear more suspicious if he seemed prepared? Good. That means it is less suspicious that he was clearly unprepared. So it's pretty clear that his course of action, within the range of actions possible, is not the one that most suggests culpability. Even to you.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

It's ridiculous because you're asking how suspicious it would be if he did something that he didn't do.

But your hypothetical question isn't ridiculous?


When in fact an immediate leap into action would be far more suspicious.

Only under your narrow choice. If he immediately left the room to immediately get on the phone with the military and intel advisers, that wouldn't. That would be something expected of the POTUS, not to begin reading a kids book.


And even if he did delay for longer that would hardly be cast-iron proof of any kind of involvement in conspiracy.

Did I say it did? You sure like to jump to conclusions a lot.


So it would appear more suspicious if he seemed prepared?

Not necessarily.

So would there be any length of time Bush stayed reading before it would make you suspicious? Pretend it was a 5 hour reading event, or more if you want.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Still would like an answer from all the skeptics on this one.

Pretty telling why most all have avoided giving an answer.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Still would like an answer from all the skeptics on this one.

Pretty telling why most all have avoided giving an answer.


You've never actually been in charge of anything, supervised people or been in a position of responsibility, have you?

If you had you would know that there is no question here.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Skeptics? Don't have an answer to my hypothetical question?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
I've been in positions of responsibility; in charge of people. I wouldn't expect to have that position anymore if I failed to respond in a crisis situation. My job in that situation (assuming I have a strong staff and don't have to actually do things myself) would be to gather information, delegate and supervise decisions being made, and project an atmosphere of confidence and resolve. President Bush did none of these things on that morning. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can defend that as a normal response.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join