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

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You've misunderstood me. The first plane crash was shown - not the impact but the immediate aftermath. Assuming he means he saw that then there's no particular mystery. I mean, I saw it. So did a lot of others.

start watching the video at 0:30 "and i saw an airplane HIT THE TOWER"

sorry, but you're lying to yourself so you don't have to face the truth. basic human coping mechanism. reconsider the evidence, because it is very damning.

reply to post by ATH911


I think that in such a situation the POTUS has no choice and does he not have the option to stall for anything.

If the gov. of the US and its army is well organised there are strikt procedures and protocols to follow for a POTUS when he first hear his country is being attacked.

I do not know what these measures are but I can imagine that he first must find a secure and safe location and while going there being informed about the status of the attack. Is the line of command in tact,... who, what, where, how?

With modern warfare every second can be decisive and can there be no time to be wasted on thinking how to adress little children....how rude and unpolite that might be.

Therefore I say it has a very funny smell all over it.....

reply to post by Bob Sholtz
This has been another example of the countless reasons why the official explanation of what happened that day, is flawed. And, another reason why we dont believe the people who still back it.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

start watching the video at 0:30 "and i saw an airplane HIT THE TOWER"

sorry, but you're lying to yourself so you don't have to face the truth. basic human coping mechanism. reconsider the evidence, because it is very damning.

I know what he said. I'm suggesting that he meant something slightly different. And as a man who garbled his words constantly I don't find it that unlikely that he missed out the word "had".

What I do find unlikely is that he owned up to the whole thing on TV. But whatever you need to believe I guess.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

This has been another example of the countless reasons why the official explanation of what happened that day, is flawed. And, another reason why we dont believe the people who still back it.

Great input, thanks. Filled with your usual worthwhile content and evidence.

How's the end of the world coming along? Appears to be yet another month late, doesn't it? Which means that I'm not sure anyone should be taking anything you say all that seriously...

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

his follow up statement "now there's one bad pilot" doesn't make sense if he had only seen the building burning.

when he told the story, he didn't garble any words, or try to correct himself. that speech was 3 months after 9/11, and it seems he tried to make something up on the fly and failed.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

Funny how the skeptic can't answer this hypothetical question!

21 minutes.

Oh, so if he waiting 20 mins & 30 secs, that wouldn't have caused you suspicion, huh?

Next time don't be so obvious.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

Funny how the skeptic can't answer this hypothetical question!

21 minutes.

Oh, so if he waiting 20 mins & 30 secs, that wouldn't have caused you suspicion, huh?

Next time don't be so obvious.

If you don't want answers, then don't ask questions. 21 minutes.

reply to post by hooper

I wanted honest answers, but honesty hasn't been your best...

Skeptics, only two of you are going to give answers, even if dishonest ones?

The topic of this thread allows only speculation.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

I wanted honest answers, but honesty hasn't been your best...

How did you come to the conclusion and the insult that I wasn't being honest? You ask how long, I give you an answer in terms of time and you call me a liar. Proof that you don't want answers, just attention.

reply to post by hooper
I have to agree with you here. I enjoyed discussing the question with you, and I felt like you thought through a pretty specific answer to ATH911's original question. I continue to disagree with you - strongly - but I don't understand the accusation of answering dishonestly.

ATH911, I think you asked a really interesting question that opened up a good discussion. Kudos for that. I find it frustrating, though, that you'd dismiss the answers that you had asked for, instead of discussing them. I don't know if you missed hooper's responses to me, which included a lot of specific thoughts leading to the 21 minute answer. If you have reasons for assuming this is a dishonest answer let us know, but it looks pretty honest to me, even though I don't agree with it.

reply to post by magicrat


Don't know where your at, geographically, but recently there was a pretty good special on, I think, the history channel about the first 24 hours after Pearl Harbor. Worth a look if you have access.

I still think the whole issue is much ado about nothing. If GWB were at the White House I still think he would have sat and thought about things for a few minutes before going into whatever action he could take. I mean, unless he thought of doing something that he didn't think anyone else would have thought of, the President's job is to lead, not just react.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by magicrat

 

Don't know where your at, geographically, but recently there was a pretty good special on, I think, the history channel about the first 24 hours after Pearl Harbor. Worth a look if you have access.

Thanks for that; I'll check it out. I'm in the US Midwest - but I think most of History Channel's stuff is online and on NetFlix these days. I have an idea of why you might be recommending it, but I'll hold off on judging that until I've had a chance to see it.

I still think the whole issue is much ado about nothing. If GWB were at the White House I still think he would have sat and thought about things for a few minutes before going into whatever action he could take. I mean, unless he thought of doing something that he didn't think anyone else would have thought of, the President's job is to lead, not just react.

And I still believe that if your job is to lead, then it's essential to first react. I can't dismiss the issue as you're able to, and I still can't see this as anything but a profound failure of leadership that's either suspicious or simply evidence of incompetence - but either way I think there's definitely something to the ado. Think about the condition you suggest:

unless he thought of doing something that he didn't think anyone else would have thought of

How would he know this without talking to people to find out their thoughts and share his?

More proof that President Bush was a
"Pet (Puppet) President" of the N.W.O.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
More proof that President Bush was a
"Pet (Puppet) President" of the N.W.O.

Know, if only there was proof that there's a N.W.O. Or any world order for that matter.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen
I agree with you in my gut, but I have a hard time playing the logic out. I know the context of the Bush family history that points towards involvement in the NWO, and I have no problem imaging him as a "puppet" for higher powers, but it does beg the questions that a few people have asked - why would they put him in front of a camera to capture his response (or more accurately, his lack of response)? Why would they have him tell an obviously false story when asked how he first learned of the attack?

Obviously this can only be speculated on (unless someone here has a Bohemian Grove membership ) so I don't think we can prove anything positively or negatively, but I do think it's a valid exploration of the evidence at hand, I'm curious to hear why you think this is proof of puppetry.

reply to post by hooper
That's a whole other debate. It probably won't surprise you to know that I disagree with you on this one too. I won't bother linking to the abundant evidence - I assume you've seen it and don't consider it to be proof, and we can argue about that somewhere else where it's on topic.

reply to post by magicrat

That's a whole other debate.

Absolutely, I think there's a whole other forum dedicated to just that issue.

It probably won't surprise you to know that I disagree with you on this one too. I won't bother linking to the abundant evidence - I assume you've seen it and don't consider it to be proof, and we can argue about that somewhere else where it's on topic.

Actually, it does a little. There is no evidence that there's any kind of overall world order, except the order that is imposed upon societies by natural selection and social interactions.