If TPTB caused 911, how could they resist not filming it themselves., page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 03:40 AM by Rafe_

Originally posted by imnothereru

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
To the two going at it above. There are actually three different versions of when Bush came to hear about the news. Three, all of them told by Bush himself. Which makes the argument above useless really.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

It actually proves the point that he was lying,
Not that it really needs more proof, i mean it is a bit too obvious, of course, unless you are naive enough to fall for something like that.

Yes indeed. Anyone that even tries to defend that is suspicious imo.
I wouldn't want anyone like that near my home or family i can asure you that.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 03:47 AM by lunarasparagus

reply to post by Rafe_

That's great. Actually, that's what I thought. You're dodging my point and going after straw men. I get it. Don't answer my question.

So you think Bush is lying because it would have been impossible that a TV was on at the school showing the breaking news at the WTC. Okay. Genius point, Sherlock. That's simply impossible.

edit on 9-2-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 04:26 AM by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
To the two going at it above. There are actually three different versions of when Bush came to hear about the news. Three, all of them told by Bush himself. Which makes the argument above useless really.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

The argument was not about when Bush came to hear the news. It was about what he meant when he said, "I saw a plane hit the tower"--at least that's what it was supposed to be about until I discovered I was arguing with a middle-schooler.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 04:29 AM by ThePeopleParty

I think the idea was for us to see it.

But you never know.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 04:36 AM by Rafe_

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Rafe_

That's great. Actually, that's what I thought. You're dodging my point and going after straw men. I get it. Don't answer my question.

So you think Bush is lying because it would have been impossible that a TV was on at the school showing the breaking news at the WTC. Okay. Genius point, Sherlock. That's simply impossible.
edit on 9-2-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Rafe_

Look mate, the only hole here is yours. It seems my point was beyond your comprehension. I never deviated from it, nor contradicted myself. You simply don't get it. I'll simplify it for you.

Bush said to a public audience:

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

Below you will see two possible interpretations of this statement. Please pick the one you believe probably is the most accurate.

1) Bush intended to tell his audience that he had seen the first plane strike live on T.V.

2) Bush used poor syntax. He meant to say, "I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower".

Do you get it?

I pick number 2.

ok.

So he did not watch the first plane anymore , he watched the second plane now.
Lets see how that works out for you then..

You pick number 2
2) Bush used poor syntax. He meant to say, "I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower".

So then you claim you did not say he saw the first plane hit (recorded in this very thread but ok.).

you say he saw A plane hit.Thus that would have meant that he saw the second plane hit (The one that took away any suspicion that it was not a freak accident) and after seeing and hearing that he still proceeded to enter the classroom and sit there reading a book with little children. Following that then it seems it was still necessary for andrew card to notify bush of the attack on america.Which bush just saw with his own 2 eyes on tv.

All this of course according to you.

Remember this. These are the implications of what you just wrote.
I doubt you can spin this in your favor,it is not the first time you failed.

edit on 9-2-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 04:48 AM by Rafe_

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
I think the idea was for us to see it.

But you never know.

imo it was the whole point.
If you think about it ,9/11 has produced

.The irak war
.The patriot act I/II
.TSA
.NDAA
.It got rid of the money pit which was the twin towers
.Huge insurance was paid because of it ($4.55 billion) so instead of losing more money it made a ton and no one needed to remove all the asbestos from top to bottom from both towers.
.A lot of high profile cases of the likes of enron were stored in building number 7 implicating a lot of rich and influential people which now of course have disapeared along with the buildings (enron just being 1 example)
.and higher oil prices ever since.

And right now Iran is being blamed for 9/11 believe it or not.
9/11 seems to have paid of for them.

edit on 9-2-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 05:05 AM by ICanThink

This is the problem with having a stupid person as a president. You have to explain later what he actually meant and cover his blunders.

I do not think that Bush had a prior knowledge of attack. Why he had to? That guy does not make any plans or decisions.
But he has to be instructed what to say to the public. So THEY really showed him a secret film and explained that now he has to represent THEM. A virtual revolution. Certain powers took control over America. It is hard not to notice how big the country has changed since. No need to change the president, it is a puppet anyway.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 05:07 AM by lunarasparagus

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 05:17 AM by Rafe_

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Rafe_

That's great. Actually, that's what I thought. You're dodging my point and going after straw men. I get it. Don't answer my question.

So you think Bush is lying because it would have been impossible that a TV was on at the school showing the breaking news at the WTC. Okay. Genius point, Sherlock. That's simply impossible.
edit on 9-2-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Rafe_

Look mate, the only hole here is yours. It seems my point was beyond your comprehension. I never deviated from it, nor contradicted myself. You simply don't get it. I'll simplify it for you.

Bush said to a public audience:

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

Below you will see two possible interpretations of this statement. Please pick the one you believe probably is the most accurate.

1) Bush intended to tell his audience that he had seen the first plane strike live on T.V.

2) Bush used poor syntax. He meant to say, "I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower".

Do you get it?

I pick number 2.

ok.

You pick number 2
2) Bush used poor syntax. He meant to say, "I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower".

So then you claim you did not say he saw the first plane hit (recorded in this very thread but ok.).

you say he saw A plane hit.Thus that would have meant that he saw the second plane hit (The one that took away any suspicion that it was not a freak accident) and after seeing and hearing that he still proceeded to enter the classroom and sit there reading a book with little children. Following that then it seems it was still necessary for andrew card to notify bush of the attack on america.Which bush just saw with his own 2 eyes on tv.

All this of course according to you.

Remember this. These are the implications of what you just wrote.
I doubt you can spin this in your favor,it is not the first time you failed.

Goddam, you're obtuse.

I never said he saw a plane hit.

Did your mom have any children that lived?

EXCUSE ME?!

first off

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Rafe_

1) Bush intended to tell his audience that he had seen the first plane strike live on T.V.

2) Bush used poor syntax. He meant to say, "I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower".

Do you get it?

I pick number 2.

And once again you twist ,turn ,wrigle but mostly ,sliver around your own bullcrap

And yes my mother had 2 more children that lived. 1 became a successful and she is doing very wel for herself and the other owns a lot of property that is rented out plus a car leas company. My own information i will keep to myself so that i can retain my anonymity for as far as it is possible.

My mother died at a very young age of cancer.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU MIGHT WANT TO KNOW ,IF SO JUST SAY THE WORD.

edit on 9-2-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 05:21 AM by lunarasparagus

reply to post by Rafe_

(Snipped)
I never said Bush saw a plane hit and you still haven't quoted where I did. Feel free to point it out please.

edit on 9-2-2012 by asala because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 05:37 AM by imnothereru

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
To the two going at it above. There are actually three different versions of when Bush came to hear about the news. Three, all of them told by Bush himself. Which makes the argument above useless really.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

The argument was not about when Bush came to hear the news. It was about what he meant when he said, "I saw a plane hit the tower"--at least that's what it was supposed to be about until I discovered I was arguing with a middle-schooler.

Im sorry but aren't you the middle-schooler here? I read the whole thread and all i have seen you do is twist around and trip over your own statements in a flawed effort trying to justify a very obvious lie told by mr.bush.

Rafe has been spot on pointing your flaws out every single time and i re-read most posts twice of you both to be sure.

and o..m..g...

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
Goddam, you're obtuse.

I never said he saw a plane hit.

Did your mom have any children that lived?

And you are calling others middle schoolers?? Thats is just low and horrible and totally uncalled for. I can see now why you cannot stand your own in a argument.

Thats is quite sickening to see on this board,your disgusting.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 05:37 AM by imnothereru

double post

edit on 9-2-2012 by imnothereru because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 05:39 AM by lunarasparagus

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 05:41 AM by imnothereru

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by imnothereru

You must be the successful sibling he was talking about.

Yeah right

I wish , i am a mother of 3 so buzz off bozo!

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 10:30 AM by Alfie1

reply to post by Rafe_

You seem to keep insisting that Bush's phrase " I saw an airplane hit the tower " can only mean seeing specific images of that with his own eyes.

However, the phrase is ambiguous and it could just as easily, and more credibly, mean that he "saw" from the tv news reports that a plane had hit the tower. We all say we "saw" this that and the other from newspapers or tv when we may well have just read it or seen a newscaster describing it.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 11:42 AM by ICanThink

OK, OS guys, now you have something harder to debunk:
Town Hall Forum on Economy in California.
"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..."

George certainly has problem with his English when it comes to 9/11

Next time pick a president with better brains and acting skills.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 12:38 PM by Alfie1

Originally posted by ICanThink
OK, OS guys, now you have something harder to debunk:
Town Hall Forum on Economy in California.
"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..."

George certainly has problem with his English when it comes to 9/11
Next time pick a president with better brains and acting skills.

Bush just plain got it wrong; what a surprise ! By the time he said that he probably thought he had seen some footage that morning of 9/11. He would have seen plenty of footage soon after.

I am not sure what conspiracy theorists are trying to push here. That GWB often made mistakes when he opened his mouth ? You wont get much argument about that. But, at the same time, it appears that he keeps being cast as the arch criminal genius of the 21st century. The two don't go well together.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 04:39 PM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by ICanThink
No he specifically says he saw it on TV: "The TV was obviously on", "There was a TV set on".
Why he would lie? We all know George is a simple honest guy.

That's what I mean. That he saw on TV that a plane had hit the tower. He messed up his tenses, it happens. Especially, one might assume, to GWB.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 04:43 PM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ICanThink

He could quite easily have meant that he saw that an aeroplane had hit the tower.

You know ,there is a very good reason why that piece was aired with the starting comment And you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder exactly what president George w.Bush knew about the attacks....and when he knew it..

Or he meant that he saw that a plane had hit the tower, and thought, "that's one terrible pilot". Why is that so unlikely?

My version means that he screwed up the tense by omitting the word "had", yours implies that he accidentally went on TV and admitted to being part of the crime of the century. I know which I find more plausible. Indeed I know which is more plausible.

edit on Thu Feb 9 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 04:49 PM by TrickoftheShade