How much proof do you need?, seriously, how much.

Cutting right to the chase here.
All the proof I need is that it actually happened.
We were supposedly the wealthiest most militarily advanced country on earth.
No one could do anything to stop it?
BS!!
There are aircraft carriers just off Sandy Hook.
Anyone that's been out fishing on a party boat knows that.
END!

reply to post by Seventh


Here is all the 'proof' you need:

• Bush has almost as much intelligence as a house brick
  
• Bush's 'way with words' makes Casey Stengel look like Sir Lawrence Olivier
  
• Bush is a pathological liar
  
• Bush is almost certainly certifiably insane
  
• It is inconceivable that Bush could remember what he had for breakfast this morning, let alone detailed sequences of events that happened 3 months in his past
  

Remember, Bush is dyslexic and he was concentrating on not letting those kids notice, especially since he was probably on the upper limit of his reading level. Being interrupted by staffers about something unimportant like a plane crash is distracting and threatened to push him off message.

So there is all the proof I need.

By the way, you sure do use the word 'proof' in weird ways.

Originally posted by reticledc
Cutting right to the chase here.
All the proof I need is that it actually happened.
We were supposedly the wealthiest most militarily advanced country on earth.
No one could do anything to stop it?
BS!!
There are aircraft carriers just off Sandy Hook.
Anyone that's been out fishing on a party boat knows that.
END!

And they are on maximum alert 24/7 watching for commercial planes on suicide missions? And what are they going to do when they spot one?

Originally posted by Seventh

The first document at least is an extremely amateurish mock up. Spotted at first glance with out any reference to the content. It's even worse than Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

Did they get the letterhead printed on the old steam driven printing machine they keep in the basement just to ensure they can print page headings at funny angles or what?

Hows that for 'proof' of your nincompoopery?

Originally posted by Seventh
How much proof do you need?, seriously, how much?

"How much"? I'm perfectly satisfied with the evidence and "proof", if that is what you want to call it, of the events of the day. There is plenty of "proof" of terrorism and al Queda and the hijackers and the aircraft and the passengers and the suicidal/murderous intent at the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon and at Shanksville.

Plenty of "proof". I don't need any more, thankyouverymuch.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by Seventh
Audio of Bush making the same mistake and slightly more detailed.....

911blimp.net...

Yeah, he saw it. Pretty clear to me. He said this more then once. I don't think at that time they were thinking about the consequences of saying such.

He saw it before he went into the classrom.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by talisman]

reply to post by rnaa


Yawn, same old replies yadda, yadda, yadda, seriously you debunkers need some new ammo for your counters....

Science evidence = peer reviews.
Peer reviewed = incorrect testing data.
Video evidence = edited.
Audio evidence = edited.
Whistle blowers = mental problems.
Verbal mistakes = justifiable human errors.
Eye witnesses = character defamation.

So on and so forth, get creative, for once, although being dyslexic can make you think you saw a plane hitting a tower, and state it 3 times is highly original, full of crap but original nonetheless.

But tbh I expect nothing less from guys that think Jet fuel can make a building collapse and eject 40 ton sections 600 feet .

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by Seventh
Audio of Bush making the same mistake and slightly more detailed.....

911blimp.net...

Yeah, he saw it. Pretty clear to me. He said this more then once. I don't think at that time they were thinking about the consequences of saying such.

He saw it before he went into the classrom.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by talisman]

Aye, that is the general consensus .

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
Hey Seventh,

Only just checked the documents, this puts a different spin on things. In general I follow a Noam Chomsky position of believing in what people say while looking at the evidence. I don't think Bush lied to look cool on this one very specific issue, more his response is humanistic.

However great work on the documents, the information from the White House must not be denied (again with Zen like exceptions) to people who seek it. The plot thickens on this one. By denying the evidence the US government is only building itself a fortress made of cards.

A live video feed to a limo - strange guys working for the Israeli Defense Forces with camcorders near the towers quote to document it, but that is another thread maybe.

Power and Equality

Unlike most other CT`s this one when a certain aspect is noticed to not be quite right, there are positive leads, say like a cd = squibs = video evidence of such, many aspects are like this .

/cheers.

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
Hey Seventh,

Only just checked the documents, this puts a different spin on things. In general I follow a Noam Chomsky position of believing in what people say while looking at the evidence. I don't think Bush lied to look cool on this one very specific issue, more his response is humanistic.

However great work on the documents, the information from the White House must not be denied (again with Zen like exceptions) to people who seek it. The plot thickens on this one. By denying the evidence the US government is only building itself a fortress made of cards.

A live video feed to a limo - strange guys working for the Israeli Defense Forces with camcorders near the towers quote to document it, but that is another thread maybe.

Power and Equality

Unlike most other CT`s this one when a certain aspect is noticed to not be quite right, there are positive leads, say like a cd = squibs = video evidence of such, many aspects are like this .

/cheers.


Ooops double post, remove this one mods please .

[edit on 18/08/2009 by Seventh]

The OP puts an awful lot of faith in Bush being able to choose the right tense when speaking publicly under pressure. And it's not as if this is a man who takes easily to rhetoric...

I'm also surprised that given the reach of the tentacles of conspiracy the "perpetrators" were willing to let the whole thing ride on whether a fairly idiotic man would let the cat out of the bag.

You can imagine them in the secret underground bunker, surrounded by carved owls and skulls, pulling on big cigars while the Kennedy assasination plays on a screen in the background from an angle no one has ever seen before.

"So, we're ready to go."

"Yeah, it's all set up - the drone planes are on message, the voice actors are all in a lean-to in Idaho finishing their rehearsals, we wired the towers last week, I got my put options in place yesterday... we're hot to trot."

"What about Dubya?"

"Yeah, he knows."

A pause.

"What?"

"He knows. I phoned him yesterday."

"What the almighty f**k did you do that for?"

"Well, he's the president. And I used to be in the Beer n Broadz society with him back in college. I'm bound to bump into him at the Yale Club, it'd be awkward if he didn't know." A long pause. "Oh christ. What have I done?"

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Hahaha, I like your style Tricky , and it`s simply answered, these false flag scenario`s need the President involved - it`s imperative, the way the commission was structured to operate and who were part of it clearly explain why, new laws brought in and blocks put in place as to how far certain agencies etc can be investigated, and not forgetting stretching the rules of the FOIA, now imagine the scene if the President was not involved and investigations as they were and still are - running into brick walls, those walls would be removed and bingo.

So with all this in mind is it not the case that if you have to have the President involved then it`s best to have a blatant retard whom when making the obligatory human error goofs - no-one takes him serious anyway - perfect .

Having a tard President is the norm and started somewhere around the Ronald Reagan era and has been ever since, and present times permitting it would be a nigh on 100% chance that when 9/11 happened the President and vice president would most definitely have been Laurel and Hardy.

On a side note as you seem to enjoy some good old fashioned satire fun, a story I wrote that got moved, I think it depicts the President and how a lot of others and me see him rather well....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

/cheers .

reply to post by rnaa


When it comes to situations like that, it becomes a numbers game.
Not for us, but for the military.
There was plenty of opportunity to do something about flight 11.
I will reserve saying it, but you know what I mean.
NY state has a lot of open space.
Minimal numbers there.
Unless, the intentions were known ahead of time though, 11 would have had to strike, before anything could have been done about 175.
175 had a course heading almost matching it's intended target.
Very difficult to know what's up, before it happened.

The point is that the solution would have been no better than the actual happening, but a lot of lives could have been saved.

The more I think about it, the more I dislike my original response.
I admit it, but something would have been better than nothing.

Now it`s have a good hard think time, how, when explaining something that happened you remember part of it so articulately, that when you carry on with your statement, to have a memory lapse would completely contradict your earlier words?.

Is this put down to bad memory?........

1). Remembering exactly to the word what someone told you.

2). Remembering not only the the young boy`s question, but his name also (Jordan).

Logic kicks in so hard here it hurts.. Bush openly states that not only how he finds out about impact 2 WTC2 the South Tower, but exactly to the word, of what was said by Andrew Card.......`A second plane has hit the second tower, America is under attack`, this proves two things..

1). His memory is not as bad as debunkers say it is.

2). When referring to watching it on T.V., it is not the second impact, because he remembers exactly how he found out about impact two, in fact so well as to the point of remembering the words 100% accurately that Andrew Card uttered.

So we know damn well that when Bush mentions Planes/T.V./Impact he is not referring to impact two which reads Classroom/Card/Speech.

So, either Bush watched the 1st impact live en route to the school in that 07:00 to 09:00 time span that has been proved to have some satellite T.V. activity happened - curtsey of DISA and the FOIA (only to a certain extent but proof nonetheless ).

Or he mistakenly thinks he watched a plane hit the North Tower WTC1, on T.V. in a place where no T.V.`s were or ever have been from a video not even released for another day, whilst uttering `That`s one terrible pilot, what a horrible accident`,.

Or he never watched a plane hit the North Tower at all, he was just making up the whole incident to either look cool or actually thought he had seen a plane hit but this would contradict entirely his recollection of when Andrew Card informed him.

You decide, bearing in mind at that time it was not common knowledge that there was only one film showing the first impact WTC1 the North Tower, so openly stating you saw it on an open T.V. was not deemed that important, we know he knew of the 1st impact prior to entering the school, we blatantly see the evidence of finding out about impact two, where does T.V. coverage enter the equation, or I should state where did the T.V. coverage enter the equation?.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by talisman
Bush couldn't have been that "clueless." He clearly intimated that the Plane (The First Plane) was a lousy pilot, a terrible accident. There is no way around that.


HE Saw the First Plane Hit the North Tower. We didn't. End of Story.

He didn't see the first plane hit the tower until the Naudet video came out later. Just like the rest of us.

Can you explain why he would lie about the TV in the corridor though jthomas?

I await your usual rebutal of reflection/deflection.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Nutter]