A follow-up to http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=7048 and the discussion we had in http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=5154

lalala.. I'm a tinfoil nut. Bring it on! as heir leader says.

Now, the only reasonable argument for the Bush apologists is that the later townhall meeting, Bush got confused and actually saw the replay of the 2nd plane hitting WTC. He said first plane and the whole 'bad pilot' story to do damage control of why he sat doing nothing.

The other possible explanation is that he saw the live coverage of smoke from 1st plane on the way into the school, and said 'gee bad pilot' went to kiddie time... And later his brain scrambled the images he saw that day (with footage of the 2nd plane hitting).

Clearly no one saw the first plane video until very much later. (Unless there was secret unreleased footage out there).

I don't buy either of those, because like the Challenger Shuttle, or JFK assassination, that moment is burned into your head, and you remember where you were and quite a lot of details about that day. I have trouble believing a few weeks later, you'd f-up major thing like that. Even crediting him for not being able to talk right.

Really don't know what to make of this. It certainly can't be ignored, that's for sure. On the one hand, the Secret Service certainly didn't follow SOPs (it doesn't matter what image the President wants to project: the Secret Service's ONLY responsibility in that scenario is for his safety - not for his image), and the slip in the town hall takes some explaining.

And yet... suppose he, or his staff, knew - would they reveal their complicity in such an obvious manner? Having a live closed-circuit feed of the first plane hitting the tower in a public building is some pretty lousy OPSEC. And the Secret Service should still pretend to do their job, even if they do know there's no danger to Bush or the children (and in a genuine and chaotic situation they could not guarantee that - remember all the crazy speculation that was flying around the media that day, multipy it by Worst Case Scenario, and THAT's what the military's/Secret Service's response SHOULD have been).

The sites that attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories (some of which, such as 911myths.com, do an extremely good job in many cases) don't even touch this, and it's not exactly a new observation. We can take that to mean that they can't explain it. Why not?

In any case, this is all circumstantial. If anyone ever expects to prosecute the perpetrators of this crime (and, just in case you believe the ONYA - Osama and Nineteen Young Arabs - conspiracy theory, it's worth noting that the FBI hasn't prosecuted a single person and openly admits it wouldn't have enough evidence to convict Osama Bin Laden even if he was still alive), there are more fruitful avenues of investigation - the demolitions, the NORAD/USAF stand-down, the security lapses at the airports, the lack of any Arabs on the Flight 77 Autopsy list, and so on.

Keep gnawing away at the bullshit, folks - the truth's in there somewhere. Just don't believe everything you hear, whoever's saying it. This Is Not A Partisan Issue.

"Missing arabs": http://911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html

joedirt's possible explanations sound plausible to me, though.

Yeah, I read that page. It carefully avoids the main point of Olmsted's article though: Every passenger, except Dana Falkenberg, was identified (that means that enough of them was found to make a positive identification), and yet NONE of the hijackers were. There may be an innocent explanation for that, but we need to hear it. Frankly, it strikes me as a little odd.

I've taken the liberty of posting 9/11 Revisited (SnakePlissken, if you're here, thanks for pointing me to it on this post: http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=7048. Never got round to watching it until today, and it was well worth it). It is here: http://videosift.com/story.php?id=7122.

-

"Where's the WMDs? Not under this chair.." Bush is a sick bastard when he did that stand-up routine.

Anyways, the 'Arab on passenger list' is a false issue meant to stir people up and be easily explained away. I believe official sources even explained that and they usually don't talk about anything 9/11 related. So anyways, all 'suspects' were obviously treated that way and their names not released on passenger lists, cause they were suspects. Now if you said their were too many non-Arab passengers to even make availible seats on the plane, that would be different, but that is not the case here.

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be described by incompetence.

This is very circumstantial evidence. It essentially takes one statement he made and blows it way out of proportion. If you haven't noticed, Bush is a horrible speaker. He gets nervous. He easily could have meant to say he saw the wreckage. Or he might not have remembered exactly what he saw, and made something up. You can't extrapolate from that and say he knew beforehand what was going to happen.

Now, why he stayed in the room after hearing that second plane had hit? I don't think it was because he didn't want to scare the children. I think it was because him and his handlers were too dumbfounded to realize how serious the situation was, and that it required immediate action. That was essentially the argument Michael Moore had in his movie, and from the look of it he's probably right.

To those who are into these conspiracies, let me just suggest that you critically think about any evidence you see. Bush may be a liar, and 9/11 certainly helped his neo-con friends push the war on Iraq forward, but that doesn't mean he planned or knew it was coming. Being able to keep such a huge secret as people are accusing him of would be difficult, and no one credible has come forward speaking of such a conspiracy. Also it assumes that Bush was willing to let thousands of Americans die so that he could push a war an Iraq, which I find really hard to believe.

I think if you want to really analyze the situation, you have to start from the position that there was no conspiracy, and then build up from there. Certainly you can find pieces here and there that might suggest a conspiracy, but evidence as circumstantial as this tells us virtually nothing.

-

It's quite easy to talk about all of this after the fact. But, if you think back, everybody was still thinking "crash" up until the second plane hit.

Contacts ARE made, this is standard. Wether it is a 747 crashing because of engine failure or other.

And, commenting on the reaction of Bush (which, I am NOT a supporter of. I just had the second guessing psychobable that seems to come out. Bush is NOT the coordinator of FAA/NORAD/FEMA/NSA/Secret Service, or anything other than the situation he is currently in, he is simply the elected leader. Otherwise, the whole US government would fall apart every night when he went to sleep.

Would they have rather had him run out of the elementary school screaming?

That would have helped the whole "terror" thing, now wouldn't it?

The simple truth is, there were actions going on. People were being mobilized. Agencies were doing their jobs.

A lot of this conspiricy garbage is as if, anytime someone cleared their throat, that it was proof of some sort of coverup. Now, everyone goes out and looks for the times people cleared their throats.

(And, everyone seems to forget that even Democrats clear their throats.)

Ok, so the idea that Kennedy might have been shot by someone else, is quite understandable. However, to believe something along the lines of which these conspiricy theorists are asking us to believe, is way over the top.

Need I remind that, although there is a Republican President, it does not mean that every government worker, every civilian contractor, and anyone else involved in Aviation/Security/World Trade/Communications/Defense is now somehow part of the Republican party.

Most of the things that are spouted off are not even backed up with anything. I mean, seriously, how many cousins does Bush HAVE?

It is normal for people to take events and investigate, question, and try to understand. But I bet you can find these sort of ties with pretty much any event in current history, if you tried. It does not make the conclusions drawn, any more truthfull.

Everyone talkes about the "controlled demolition" garbage. We have lots of information regarding that. Now, how much information do we have regarding near fully loaded aircraft striking skyscrapers and the aftermath thereof? Well... unless you have a ton of information showing me how they should have fallen otherwise... I still can't make the same connection.

I can show you THOUSANDS of buildings, burned and destroyed, in which they didn't land all over a five mile radius. What else would you expect?

Oh, so they fell from the top down? As apposed to what?

I understand the hatred of Bush. There are ENOUGH things the he has done in public eye, to hate him over. Let's not start looking completely insane while we try to vilify him.

-

SnakePlissken:

You are taking truthiness to a new level. I can only say fact number 1 is true, but you'd be hardpressed to find many people who could say your other points are facts, with perhaps the exception of point 4.

Now, how to explain how fast the towers collapsed? I can't, but that I can't doesn't mean that the building was demolished. I'm not an architect, nor a physist, and I don't have the means to make such an assessment, and I suspect neither do you. I can only look to experts on this, and as far as I know there is no consensus.

Certainly there are experts who have said what you are implying, but conspiracy theorists are specifically looking for such experts. You already have a conclusion, and are now looking for evidence based on that conclusion. Doing this, you can find 'proof' of nearly anything you want. I'll take this sort of evidence more seriously when an indepenent group of scientists can come to similar conclusions.

In terms of WTC7, I don't know any of the details on that. I do remember on 9/11 while watching the news, there was mention that one of those smaller buildings was purposely demolished. I don't know what the current story people are saying about this now, nor if the news got it wrong it the time. If I remember correctly the other building collapsed after at least one of the main towers went down, perhaps both, and was hit by lot of debris.

-

Well, I believe that it was all a staged plot.

Of course, I believe FDR {that democrat godling} knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time, Kennedy was killed at Johnson's orders, Elvis is hiding down the block, Ronald Reagan was Nancy's hand puppet, there never was a moon landing, all seven Columbia astronauts are alive and well and will come out when the war in the middle east is over (to protect the Jewish astronaut), and that the Maine was blown up by us to start the Spanish-American War.

Of course, I used to believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth-Fairy too . . . .

How about you?

:-p

haha totally laughable. At the same time people are calling people idiot-conspiracy theorists, they are talking out of the other side of their mouth saying, "I do remember on 9/11 while watching the news, there was mention that one of those smaller buildings was purposely demolished."

Yeah, they went into a burning building and set up for a demo in a few hours. Ok.

----
KaiEr, what are you talking about?

"I can show you THOUSANDS of buildings, burned and destroyed, in which they didn't land all over a five mile radius. What else would you expect?"

Ok, show me THOUSANDS of burned and destroyed buildings that fell or were damaged, other than WWII type bombings, and other than controlled demolition where planning and explosives were used.

As to the 'we can possibly ever know what a plane would do' retarded argument. http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=179 (a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945)
"Investigation showed that the structural integrity of the Empire State Building was not compromised by this accident" ... "engulfed an an explosion of flaming, high-octane fuel. The burning gasoline traveled through hallways, stairwells, and elevator shafts, reaching as far as four floors below the point of impact as the building shook." ... "One of the bomber's engines completely penetrated the Empire State Building, and fell from the opposite side. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and severed the cable of an elevator car" ... "impact left a hole in the north face of the Empire State Building eighteen feet wide by twenty feet high."

So sure, smaller plane, but only by half and maybe four times as much fuel.

How about actual physics simulations of the crash? Is that to conspiracy for you? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020911072432.htm "At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

Now they refuse to do that simulation for the WTC, and only simulated concrete columns, but again, have you seen the core of the WTC? It is no steel skin, or under-designed building. No amount of fuel could have damaged the core, which phonecalls from inside the WTC would imply the fires were not that hot.

Anyways, instead of THOUSANDS of buildings, just show me one steel building that was brought down by a fire buring inside. In just hours. Just one building.

I love bats...except moonbats.

Joe... *sigh* Free your mind man.

Buildings burn every day... Buildings are NOT destroyed by intentionally flying fully loaded jets into them.

Your use of the Empire State building is just sad. There is quite a difference between a B-25 and a modern passenger jet loaded with jet fuel, flying at those speeds.

"No amount of fuel could damage the core"... Ummm... exactly, the core was an intense system of elevators. Hard to damage air.

Use of the empire state building as an example, is like trying to use a 1940 DeSoto as an example of how a car accident with a 2006 Porsche should look.

Take a look at the construction materials for both, take a look a blueprints. Take a great look at the elevator system from the WTC.

We were not talking about a monsrosity of poured concrete and hardened steel. We were talking about a relativly light construction of office space. Something built to withstand wind tolerance and load bearing. The WTC could NEVER have been built in the same way as the ESB, the load would have been entirely too much.

Taking out the structual foundation at a high level, WILL cause a collapse... (Didn't you ever build a house of cards?)

You seem to be forgetting about that "other" peice of evidence that people like to toss out... the Pentagon. Built to WITHSTAND this type of thing. Parts of that plane went through a good bit of those low level, more structurally sound, building. Now, imagine what it would do to light concrete and steel tube, with a glass shell.

Come on... THINK MAN.

-

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by cricket.