BUSTED: Guess what the kids in the classroom were reciting before Bush was informed of 9/11?

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
By the way, why do you have to take up space to post that you gave a star and flag? Is it so the author will like you in the future?

Where have I ever said "star and flag" on ATS?

reply to post by spoor


ijust replied in general to intrptrs posts, sorry

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by intrptr

 

Originally posted by intrptr

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by intrptr

 

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

Your own words seem to explain why you don't understand the relevance of my posting the video.

I watched it. I had no trouble seeing or hearing the difference between Ba and Fa from the beginning. Both lips make "Ba" and teeth on bottom lips make "Fa". People who don't pay attention to a whole sentence other people are saying are just self absorbed, self oriented and care less what others are saying. They used to call it ADHD, now it's called the "McGurk" effect? I'm still chuckling as I write this. Did you pay attention for all of that? We're way off topic here. Enough... geez

You had no trouble seeing or hearing the difference between Ba and Fa from the beginning? "Fa" was never said in the video, only "Ba". I still don't believe you understood it. Regardless, the video presented in the OP of this thread shows a class full of students reading aloud words being pointed to on a printed page. The producer of the video deceptively added large red words to the video for viewers to read as they listened to what the kids were saying. The McGurk effect demonstrates how visual stimulation can alter what one believes he or she is hearing, e.g., "PLAYING" becomes "PLANE". Get it?

Watch it again. This time all the way thru with your eyes closed. They playin you man. Just like I was. Get it?
And look for the post that debunks the Playing word for Plane where the words have been edited by CGI. That person proves that the hoax is a Hoax. All I know about that ridiculous thread idea is that it spawned another about wether bush knew about the events beforehand. Thats the thread. Not some Idea about kiddy recital. Aren't you do back at the Hotel Mr. Bates?

Playin' with me? Sounds like you;re playin' with yourself. Must be a bit over your head. Don't worry about it.

Woops, I was wrong about this one and I apologize to Lunar asparagus and that gerky dude. Thanks for being patient enough to keep denying my thick headed ignorance until I eventually got it.

reply to post by steppenwolf86

You are a broken record. "Prove he knew. Write me another essay about it so I can bash your point of view again and again."
Yah, I'm tired of dancing thru your "Bush is a nice guy hoops". You feel the need to defend him so defend him. Prove to me he didn't know ahead of time? Make more excuses for your master than the day is long. Like I said, we will never know. It's all conjecture any way. A conspiracy thread for a conspiracy forum. But thats not why you are here huh? I am sure glad you aren't president when WWIII starts. You will probably be unavailable for comment. Unlike here.

Classifying people as truthers means that you have bought the MSM official line of the truth as they tell it. What does that make you? A "REAL" truther?
Using the slogan "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" means you also buy the MSM "party line" about 911 as well. The two words together are a media generated term, making any talk of a conspiracy only a "theory". Any suggestion of other than their "real" truth only a conspiracy.
Some label others sheeple and truthers and theorists, but it is really the labelers who are just repeating dogma that they heard. God forbid they should question any thing, rather they just tear others down.

Always question authority. If is a good authority it will stand up against your questions and be stronger for it. If it is a lying authority then your questions will expose it for what it really is.

See what I mean? (Check page 4 for my first response).

This was debunked on the first page (or so it seems), and yet, umteen pages later...

"Oh my god, this was debunked on the first page!"

THAT is what scares me. No matter how ridiculous something is, there are all these intelligent people who will argue with it for hours, or even days. What a waste of time.

Why would they do that?

I don't believe in unicorns because it seems pretty "ridiculous" to believe in flying horses with a prong sticking out of their forehead. However, there is no way in Hell that I would go to a unicorn site and argue about it. That would be a little unhealthy.

Arguing with walls is what is "ridiculous".

If you're so sure nobody will believe this crap, why worry about it?

I truly do not understand.

This site is scary.

reply to post by intrptr


Right, the burden of proof is on the people trying to DISPROVE that Bush was hypnotized, and that the planes were real, not holograms.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by intrptr
Well, as "Commander in Chief" what do you think he should do?

Do exactly what he did, wait for more information, remember only 1 plane had hit a building...

Did you expect him to order the shoot down of every aircraft in the sky?

At that time nobody knew how wide in scope the attack really was, right?

they did not even know it was an attack....

But people who believe silly conspiracy theories grasp at straws!

Andy Card explained the exact words he whispered to the President:

"It couldn't have been an accident and so I made the decision to send in two facts and make one relatively obvious editorial comment. And I wanted to do nothing to invite a question or start a dialogue. I opened the door to the classroom. And I walked up to the president and leaned over and whispered onto his right ear. 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.'"(source)

So he was clearly telling the President about the second plane, and the fact that we were under attack.

Not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting or just arguing from a position of ignorance, but either way it's a hypocritical place from which to accuse people of grasping at straws.

Also, I'd argue that shooting down every aircraft in the sky was hardly his only alternative to sitting and doing nothing.

This has been a fascinating thread to read - mostly because of good honest work by debunkers (and some really clever photoshopping) - I for one am glad that mods haven't closed it. I do see the argument for putting it in the HOAX forum - clearly the video the OP posted was deceptively edited when the text was added to it.

Personally I'd rather see it in the Skunk Works forum, so we can hear more about the possibility of phonetically similar words being used for the purposes of magic ritual - I don't know much about that sort of thing, but it seems like if the idea is to focus energy through repetition of significant words, then homophones would have the same effect, right? I don't particularly buy this theory, but I'm curious to explore it further and hear from some people who know more about it than I do.

reply to post by intrptr


What would Bush have done if the whisper came had he have been somewhere else ?
Like giving a speech at an event.
Or.....
At a meeting with other leaders.
Or.......
Being interviewed on TV.
Or.........

Well anywhere really because the list could go on and i can`t think of anywhere he`d be and do what he did that morning.

He done NOTHING and something stinks !

reply to post by lambros56


It is called composure. Professionalism. What could he have done? Shown all of those people how afraid he really was and freak out...walk out? It would have been with little class someone would do that but it seems to be the consensus here that he should have stopped and left. I prefer a leader with the balls to keep himself calm...I am sure he was not thinking about my little goat in those 4 minutes.

If he stopped and left would the towers have not fallen?
If he stopped and left would 3000 people still be alive?
If he stopped and left would 93 have not ended up in a field?
If he stopped and left would it have been ANY different?

What would you have done differently?

reply to post by esdad71
I would have said, "Excuse me, kids, I have some grown up business to attend to. Thank you for letting me join your class, and keep up the good work." Then I would have talked to my staff to find out what was going on, what our response was, and what I could do to help manage the crisis and lead the country. Why is this option so difficult to imagine? It's what a leader should do.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by lambros56

 

It is called composure. Professionalism. What could he have done? Shown all of those people how afraid he really was and freak out...walk out? It would have been with little class someone would do that but it seems to be the consensus here that he should have stopped and left. I prefer a leader with the balls to keep himself calm...I am sure he was not thinking about my little goat in those 4 minutes.

If he stopped and left would the towers have not fallen?
If he stopped and left would 3000 people still be alive?
If he stopped and left would 93 have not ended up in a field?
If he stopped and left would it have been ANY different?

What would you have done differently?

I keep asking the same questions and no one has attempted to answer them!

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by lambros56

 

It is called composure. Professionalism. What could he have done? Shown all of those people how afraid he really was and freak out...walk out? It would have been with little class someone would do that but it seems to be the consensus here that he should have stopped and left. I prefer a leader with the balls to keep himself calm...I am sure he was not thinking about my little goat in those 4 minutes.

If he stopped and left would the towers have not fallen?
If he stopped and left would 3000 people still be alive?
If he stopped and left would 93 have not ended up in a field?
If he stopped and left would it have been ANY different?

What would you have done differently?

Well, I sure as Hell wouldn't have attacked Iraq.

I do agree that a leader should remain calm, though.

reply to post by applesthateatpeople


Read back earlier in the threat to where I asked the same question: What would you do differently than Bush and how would it have saved lives on SEPTEMBER 11th. The argument is about Bushs alleged inaction while in the classroom, not about decisions he made regarding the wars.

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by Cassius666
If the teacher was told that for the visit of bush she had to cover the material we see in the video, its curious at best.

And the material she covered isn't the material you see in the video. Curious, indeed. Sad that people feel the need to create bogus garbage like that to cloud the issues. I've never understood a need for that particular type of attention, but it's same as it ever was.

So this whole thread is pointless.

Why hasn't this been moved to the hoax bin?

The point of the thread was bogus, it was faked.

Hence, it's a hoax.

reply to post by steppenwolf86


I was making a small joke.

Very sorry if I offended you.

I see no problem in how Bush reacted in the classroom.

He seemed very uneasy, and displayed signs that he had no prior knowledge.

I don't think Bush knew it was going to happen.

Now Cheney on the other hand...

reply to post by steppenwolf86
What about the post right above yours? The one where I attempted to answer that question?

reply to post by magicrat


We were all curious how the decision you made in your alternate world would save lives and change the events of 9/11. If the only outcome is "taking charge" or being "in control" but everything unfolds in the same exact way, then complaining over and over again about how Bush was such a moron by just sitting there is pointless. The fact is, he finished the story with the kids, and no lives were directly lost because of it.

[HOAX]this thread[/HOAX]