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

Originally posted by hooper
There is no evidence that there's any kind of overall world order

There's tons of evidence. I agree with your comment above that there's no proof, but no evidence? Come on. There's a crazy pyramid on the US dollar bill, for Pete's sake. I know that's not proof (and I'm well aware of possible non-NWO explanations for it) but it's definitely evidence. And the more you look (or at least the more I look), the more evidence there is. But again, that's for a different thread, and I'd welcome you challenging my beliefs if we have the chance.

except the order that is imposed upon societies by natural selection and social interactions.

That's an interesting thought ... so are you saying it seems impossible to you that natural selection and social interactions could impose an order that includes small groups focused on secretly consolidating power? That seems to me to be a natural response, sociologically speaking, to the factors you identified.

reply to post by magicrat

That's an interesting thought ... so are you saying it seems impossible to you that natural selection and social interactions could impose an order that includes small groups focused on secretly consolidating power? That seems to me to be a natural response, sociologically speaking, to the factors you identified.

What I'm saying is I think there is a general theory of social order that can explain all social constructions, but not all human relationships. In other words I think there is a underlying open instinct that drives the construction of all social orders. But that instinct does not order interpersonal human relations. Your relationship with say, the local water department can be predicted with some accuracy, however, I cannot predict how you will interact with the guy that comes to check the water meter with any accuracy at all unless I have some direct and specific knowledge of you both.

Let's review the answers* from all the tremendous number of skeptics on this board (*regardless of how sincere or insincere their answers were):

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I'll answer your question. 26 minutes.

Originally posted by hooper

21 minutes.

Now let's see what truthers think.

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

My question for you truthers is, with this hypothetical scenario (see the OP), about how long would Bush have had to stay 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)?


Since I'm a truther, I'll answer first: 10 seconds



.

reply to post by hooper
Thanks for expanding your thoughts on that. I think this makes sense. If I'm understanding you correctly, I definitely agree with the general idea that a theory on the macro level doesn't necessarily apply to the micro level. Not sure how this disproves the possibility of the NWO though...

Originally posted by ATH911

My question for you truthers is, with this hypothetical scenario (see the OP), about how long would Bush have had to stay 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)?

I think I've answered this in my discussion with hooper earlier in this thread, but I'll say it again. In my opinion a leader's job is to respond immediately to a crisis, and the President had the opportunity to respond immediately without even disrupting the students. I can't even give him ten seconds. Any amount of time wasted by a lack of response, in my opinion, is either suspicious or indicative of incompetence.

I do think there are other possible explanations for his inaction than just "he was in on it and that's why he was stalling," so I'm not convinced that this is prima facie evidence for conspiracy, but I do think it's a red flag and warrants further investigation.

Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics, only two of you are going to give answers, even if dishonest ones?

No one is listening, nobody cares.

You think it's less suspicious if Bush leaps up and declares a state of emergency and seems to know all about what's unfolding. I think it would be much more suspicious.

But really you're just convinced already so anything he does is going to be marshalled as evidence for your crackpot theory.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

No one is listening, nobody cares.

I'm listening. I care. I've had some good discussions thanks to this thread. Please don't speak for everyone.

You think it's less suspicious if Bush leaps up and declares a state of emergency and seems to know all about what's unfolding. I think it would be much more suspicious.

I still find it really odd that you're only able to offer extreme, absurd alternatives to the "sitting and doing nothing for seven minutes" choice.

I think politely excusing himself so he could talk to his staff and find out exactly what's going on is a pretty reasonable - and, in my mind, essential - response.

I also think that choosing to remain in a publicly accessible building, at an event that was publicly scheduled, in the midst of a complex and confusing surprise attack on American soil - that implies knowledge about what's unfolding.



Edited to add: I have to admit, I avoided your last point -

But really you're just convinced already so anything he does is going to be marshalled as evidence for your crackpot theory.

because I'm afraid there might be truth to it. I shouldn't have done that.

I try hard to look at everything objectively and acknowledge evidence that contradicts my assumptions, but I think it's fair to raise the possibility that my bias influences my vision sometimes. I would argue that faith in the "official story" (or contempt for the "truther movement") creates bias as well, and we should all do our best to pursue truth rather than just validate our assumptions. Point taken.

Originally posted by magicrat

I'm listening. I care. I've had some good discussions thanks to this thread. Please don't speak for everyone.

Apologies, I was speaking for "skeptics". ATH911 has an amusing habit of assuming that people can't answer his questions (including, oddly, when they actually have) when generally I think nobody really cares about them. Or, in a lot of cases, can understand them.

I still find it really odd that you're only able to offer extreme, absurd alternatives to the "sitting and doing nothing for seven minutes" choice.

I'm merely outlining what I think ATH911 means. I would find it weirder if Bush looked like he understood the scope of events, that's all. As it is it looked very much like he didn't.

I also think that choosing to remain in a publicly accessible building, at an event that was publicly scheduled, in the midst of a complex and confusing surprise attack on American soil - that implies knowledge about what's unfolding.

The key word there is "choosing". Neither you or I have any idea what the protocol was or why the decision was made to stay for a few minutes. Even fevered conversations behind the scenes among aides could have taken that long while they argues about what to do. Sorry, I don't find it implies what you're saying at all.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Apologies, I was speaking for "skeptics". ATH911 has an amusing habit of assuming that people can't answer his questions (including, oddly, when they actually have) when generally I think nobody really cares about them. Or, in a lot of cases, can understand them.

Fair enough. I appreciate the apology, and I understand what you're saying about ATH911's responses.

Neither you or I have any idea what the protocol was or why the decision was made to stay for a few minutes.

I absolutely agree. As Cassius said so eloquently earlier, the topic of this thread allows only speculation, and we are basing our respective speculations on different sets of assumptions. I don't think there's any way to prove either of us right or wrong.

Originally posted by magicrat

I absolutely agree. As Cassius said so eloquently earlier, the topic of this thread allows only speculation, and we are basing our respective speculations on different sets of assumptions. I don't think there's any way to prove either of us right or wrong.

Well sort of. I'm saying that you can't learn much from what Bush did. Certainly nowhere near enough to infer any kind of involvement. You seem to agree.

I am also, in passing, saying that ATH911's question is pointless and silly, but that's hardly your fault.

Originally posted by ATH911
That didn't answer my question, but if the reading event lasted until 10am and Bush and his advisers patiently stayed in that room while our country was being attacked until the end of that event, you wouldn't find that at the least bit odd?

WTF, over? Do you think he'd have done any good by jumping to his feet and crashing thru the classroom door, screaming, "Take cover, take cover!!!"

He could have turned it into a photo-op or media circus, but he didn't.

The 'deer in the headlights' look obviously means something. His faraway look suggests he's calculating something and picturing the scene.
How does this sound.
Both towers were supposed to detonate on impact. One impact, tower down in ten seconds. Total shock. Photographers gather and point cameras at the billowing debris pile. The plaza was left purposefully open to allow a good view. (The architect wanted to protect the plaza from winds with a wall of shops and restaurants. He was overruled.) Second aircraft approaches, photographers swing cameras up and get blurred shots of second impact followed by immediate destruction. Photographers throw themselves under overhangs designed for this purpose. A few poor quality pictures and videos are retrieved. Much larger loss of life, massive recruiting tool, very little photographic or video evidence.
Instead we had one failed detonation, "Don't worry sir, the second one will blow". Then Andrew Card has to deliver the fateful message, "The second one also failed to detonate, sir". Does that explain the look on Bush's face? He's thinking about the enormous number of photographers and videographers getting the evidence that's at the heart of the Truth Movement. It isn't just coincidence that NIST have avoided studying the process by which the buildings were transformed into debris and dust. Preferring instead to study the 'intensely hot fires' and the damage caused by the impacts.

Seems all very staged to me. Like the real new world order wants us to know it was an inside job, thats why there are so many huge blunders. The sacrificial "Illuminati" is going to take the fall for all of the evils of the last couple hundred years