I started this thread because question arose about what Bush did or didn't see on TV the morning of 9/11 on another thread that I started. That discussion I fear will distract from the point of that thread

The subject of the other thread is whether Jack White or any other CTs can name a civil engineer or architect who backs their contention than the WTC collapsed due to demolition job.

So far the only one Jack White could cite is " architect" David Heller. Unfortunately for Jack. The school is an unaccredited diploma mill [ http://www.sfia.net/FAQ.asp ] . In other words Heller can't legally work as an architect. The school doesn't offer courses in civil/structural engineering which would qualify him to speak with authority. Heller displays his ignorance in his article. See the other thread for more details.

See below the main messages from the other thread concerning what Bush saw and said. Again for more see the original thread at the link below.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5153

[quote name='Stephen Turner' post='42429' date='Oct 18 2005, 04:24 PM']
[quote name='Matthew Lewis' post='42335' date='Oct 17 2005, 10:48 PM']
I just have one thing to say about number 4

[quote]Bush said "I saw a plane hit the tower".[/quote]

There have been websites devoted to Bush's verbal errors and misspeakings. Yet he is supposed to have said this exactly correct? What if just one word were added?

[quote]I saw (that) a plane hit the tower.[/quote]

Completely changes the meaning doesn't it?

Can you say definitively that he meant exactly what you think he meant?
[/quote]

Matthew, there's no debate about what GWB said, it is a matter of public record. He said loud and clear on TWO occasions that he saw the first plane strike the tower, to claim any thing else is semantics. He further claimed to have witnessed this phenomonia on a television at the school,whats wrong with this statement?
1, There was no TV set in the area he claimed to have seen it.
2,The first strike was not broadcast live, for obvious reasons.
3, He can not be refering to the second strike,as he was in the classroom listening to the children read when that occured.

Make of it what you will, but he was not misquoted, or taken out of context.Steve.

Len, thank you for your post, some good points, I shall respond shortly.
[/quote]

[quote name='Jack White' post='42453' date='Oct 18 2005, 06:29 PM']
[quote name='Stephen Turner' post='42442' date='Oct 18 2005, 08:20 PM']
Steve, because he claimed to have seen it happen on a TV when he entered the school. And thought "Gee there's a bad pilot" perhaps I need to post his actual words so you can see for yourself. regards Steve.
[/quote]


He saw in IN THE LIMO on the way to the school, on a CCTV hookup, which
MEANS THAT THE EVENT WAS COVERTLY TELECAST BY INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES!

Jack
[/quote]

[quote name='Stephen Turner' post='42492' date='Oct 19 2005, 09:09 AM']
Dec 4th 2001, Bush, " I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw the aeroplane hit the tower, the TV was obviously on, and I thought well, there's one terrible pilot."

Jan 5th 2002, Bush, " First of all when we walked into the classroom I had seen this plane fly into the FIRST biulding, there was a TV set on"

Just what is it about the above you dont understand? GWB is either lying or telling the truth, there is no middle ground

point one, "I was sitting out side the classroom" Wrong, at the time of the first strike bush was in the limo, still on his way to the school.

Point two, " I saw the aeroplane hit the tower"Lying or telling the truth?

Point three, "The Tv was obviously on" Firstly there was no TV, and secondly it could not have been showing what Bush describes.

Now you can not explain these two statements by saying, " the guys a clutz, he's always screwing up the English language"there are no verbal screwups in either statement, its quite simple, he is either lying or he's telling the truth. Steve.
[/quote]

My reply to Steve's 2nd [and last post] above.

[quote name='Stephen Turner' post='42492' date='Oct 19 2005, 09:09 AM']
Dec 4th 2001, Bush, " I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw the aeroplane hit the tower, the TV was obviously on, and I thought well, there's one terrible pilot."

Jan 5th 2002, Bush, " First of all when we walked into the classroom I had seen this plane fly into the FIRST biulding, there was a TV set on"

Just what is it about the above you dont understand? GWB is either lying or telling the truth, there is no middle ground[/quote]

There are two possible scenarios.

1] Bush saw the plane hit the second tower as described in the school.

2] Bush saw the plane hit the first tower secretly filmed and transmitted in his car.

His statements on both occasions aren't a perfect match either situation, so he definitely misspoke both times.

If we accept the first scenario he saw the plane hit the 2nd tower but thought it was a replay of the first. Actually his Dec. 4 statement fits this scenario but not the 2nd because presumably he would have figured out by 4 months after the fact that what he had seen was the 2nd tower being hit. There are 2 possible explanations 1) possibly he hadn't 2) he recounting what had happened as he perceived it at the time.

If you want to believe the 2nd scenario, you should ask yourself 1] why would they go to the risk of secretly filming and transmitting the first strike? What would be gained?

IIRC Transmitting to satellites requires relatively large antenas which are hard to hide someone filming and transmitting could be noticed -Why take the risk?

I don't think they could have sure a hacker or foreign intelligence agency or domestic intelligence agents not in on it would have picked up the signal being uploaded to the satellite or downloaded to the car. -Why take the risk?

Another consideration is that if Bush had been "in" on the attacks and had seen the secret transmission he would have been acutely aware that he could never say publicly what he ha seen. He would have been much more careful about what he said.

Of course be could be making the whole thing up and didn't see either tower being hit or saw the 2nd tower being hit in the school and knew it was the 2nd tower. But what would be the point and what would it prove? Bush is a lying sack of shit. I take that for granted - he lied about Iraqi and various other points. Would it indicate he knew what was going to happen that morning? I don't think so.


[quote]point one, "I was sitting out side the classroom" Wrong, at the time of the first strike bush was in the limo, still on his way to the school.[/quote]

Explained - Possibly he saw the 2nd tower being hit and thought it was the first

[quote]Point two, " I saw the aeroplane hit the tower"Lying or telling the truth?[/quote]

see above

[quote]Point three, "The Tv was obviously on" Firstly there was no TV, and secondly it could not have been showing what Bush describes.[/quote]

How can you be sure there was no TV in the school? How do you know for sure he was in the classroom when the 2nd plane struck? - even the CT cites I looked at can't positively place him in the classroom before 9:03

My take on 9/11 is that America was taken by surprise, The Bush administration missed many warning signs and there is a strong possibility it could have been prevented had they not been so disinterested in terrorism.

Is it possible that they knew what was going to happen but did nothing to prevent it ala Pearl Harbor CTs? Maybe but unlikely. Did the Bush administration plan the whole thing? Possible but even less likely. I have yet to see any credible evidence to support either theory.

Was WTC a demolition job? Was the Pentagon hit by a missile? These theories are absurd. The inability of Jack White and other proponents of this theory to be able to find ONE single solitary civil or structural engineer or certified architect who disagrees with the findings of FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers should make that abundantly clear

Len -

Thanks for starting this thread - I was feeling bad about hijacking the other one.

Now -

Does anyone have any evidence that covert video was taken of the first plane hitting WTC-1 besides quoting President Bush.

Any Evidence!

I'd even be willing to look at wacko CT sites at this point.

Len, first sorry for posting off topic on your original thread,I will see if John Simpkin cant redirect any off topic replies here.

Now what time did GWB enter the classroom...

From "Timeline of 9-11" © Paul Thompson.

8-55,-9-00am, "As Bush arrives at the Booker School he is briefly told of the 1st WTC crash, Condie Rice later claims he says, How terrible, it sounds like a terrible accident,keep me informed." according to this evidence he did not witness the first crash, but was informed about it prior to entering the School(although other tales of when Bush was first informed abound)

9-03, According to Sarasota County Sheriff, Bill Balkwill,JUST AFTER BUSH ENTERS THE CLASSROOM, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone asks "can you get me to a TV, somethings happening" Three S/S agents, a SWAT member, the Marine, and Balkwill,TURN ON THE TV IN A NEARBY FRONT OFFICE, just as flight 175 crashes into the WTC.

9-06, Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card enters the classroom and whispers in his ear, "A second plane hit the other tower America is under attack Sir,ABC news reporter Anne Compton marks the time as "By my watch 9-07am".
New York Times 9-06, Telegraph, 9-05, Albaquerque Tribune, 9-07. Flight 175 had impacted with the WTC South tower at 9-03.

If Bush as has been suggested witnessed the second strike( on a non existant TV) why did Card need to tell him about it, surly his memory isn't that bad?Also as he was told about the first strike prior to entering the school, when he witnessed the second strike wouldn't he have realised for himself that this was more than a terrible accident.

IMHO, we are left with two possibilities 1, Bush was lying about the whole incident, or 2, to use his own terminology he is truth-telling.

Steve,

It is quite possible that Bush lied, I wouldn't put that past him. This is not evidence that he had any foreknowledge of or planned 9/11.

Do you have a link back to the article you quoted? Did the original article have links back to the publications it cited? I believe you, but in the case of the article I'd like to check. My experience with Fetzer has taught me always to check that a cited source said what it was purported to have said.

My rationalisation of Bush's comments are as follows 1] he probably heard about the 1st strike in his limo, 2] he saw the 2nd plane hit live when he got to the school and thought it was a replay, 3] Andy Card came in and told Bush that "America is under attack" that both towers had been struck by 2 different planes.

His first comment doesn't contradict this scenario, his 2nd one does but I already explained that.

If it can be documented that be was in the classroom before 9:03 then yes it would be undeniable that he lied. But we already know he is a liar, it wouldn't be evidence of a conspiracy. If indeed it could be proven he was in the classroom at the time of the 2nd strike it's strange that none of his aides caught it and corrected him or if they did that he repeated the same lie a few months later.

Len, will provide the link inthe next couple of days, I certainly dont blame you for double checking.

The problem with Bush seeing the second strike, and thinking it was a replay of the first is he would have had to not notice the thick black smoke literally pouring from the North tower,not very likely IMHO.. Steve.

Steve,

You're right, I watched an excellent BBC documentary about what happened to the WTC on 9/11. Even a moron like Bush couldn't have missed that.

The bastard lied. [As if that is a surprise he lied about Iraq and various other things]

Len

Len, I think I may know why Bush told this lie. (If lie it was) He is a guy who has never really done any thing with his life apart from become President of the USA, and really has very little idea of the various protocols that are expected from the holder of this post. so he gets by with his everyman act, Reagan used a very similar varient of the same, you know the score,"I'm just like you" I feel your pain" "Trust me I understand you" Its the trick of the populist politician the World over. I think joining in with the pain of 911 just proved to good a trick not to play. I think the words were probably out of his mouth before his brain became engaged, and having said it once, when asked the same question, had to tell the same lie. Its just a shame that the craven lap-dogs of the Media did not ask him to explain himself when he first uttered this immortal phrase.. Steve.

IF lie it was???
You're the one who convinced me he lied. Now you say "if"?

How can his statements be classified if not as a lie?

immortal phrase

immortal or immoral?

Len, two remote possibilities present themselves.

1,As Steve Ulman has pointed out sometimes what comes out of GWB,s mouth has a mere tenious link to reality, as most of us perceive that term. So do I think That he misspoke? NO, can I prove it,NO.

2, Jack believes that there was some kind of live feed to the Limo, enabling Bush to witness the first strike. Do I believe this? NO, can I prove it false, NO.

My belief is that, for what ever reason, Bush told a bare faced lie, and having told it once, had to tell it again. Looks like me and you have caught George with his metaphorical pants down.

Yes, immoral better suits the cicumstances. Steve.

1. I don't know if Steve [Ullman] still backs that idea. Once all the details are out defending GWB's comments as a misspeak are untenable.

2. Besides the ludicrousness of Jack's claims GWB would still be lying because he said he saw it at the school. Of course that ignores the bigger picture Bush would have been lying about everything about 9/11, a traitor to his country and a mass murderer.

Fair comments, the only fact that can be proven is that GWB lied about the nature of what he saw.

Do you have any thoughts about why he lied, when telling the truth would have been so much simpler? I believe its just in his nature to "Big up" his part.

Part of his "just an ordinary guy" stick like you said???

I thought it would be interesting to get a Republican POV on this thread so I PMed Tim Gratz and John Gillespe.

Here's Gillespe's reply



I wonder exactly where has this nut case ever shown his intellectual abilities to justify his delusion that his place is "to be among noted and respected authors and investigative researchers"

I know I'm not supposed to post PMs but feel the obnoxiousness of his reply warrants an exception.

A participant in this forum who wishes to remain anonymous sent me a few e-mails about Bushes comments. I cobbled them together, the credit is all hers

Len,

I'm not fan of Bush, believe me, but I think that rather than lying, he was victim of a memory error that's so common the memory researchers have a name for it -- source misattribution. If you Google for that phrase with "Memory" or "source monitoring," you'll find a lot of discussion about it. For instance, there's a study done in Denmark concerning the crash of an airplane into an apartment building, which then burned. There was NO film of this accident, yet when people were asked months later if they'd seen the plane crash into the building, more than half said yes, and some gave vivid descriptions. Lying? No, they'd pictured the event in their minds and then "recalled" those pictures, thus misattributing the source of their "memory." Bush undoubtedly saw many replays of the planes crashing into the towers, but misremembered when, in my opinion

and later a link to this article which originally appeared in Newsweek.

Sept. 20, 2004
Memory: Remember it right?

By STEVE FRIESS

It's well documented that President George W. Bush was in a Florida classroom on 9/11 when chief of staff Andrew Card told him a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. But how did Bush learn about the first crash?

Two of his recollections are similar, but factually impossible. On Dec. 4, 2001, and Jan. 5, 2002, Bush told audiences he saw the first plane hit the tower on TV before he entered the classroom. But he couldn't have seen it; nobody saw it live on TV. Between those recountings, on Dec. 20, Bush told The Washington Post that Karl Rove told him.

This isn't to say the president is a fabulist. He's just exhibiting a prominent example of a common memory glitch, says UCLA psychology fellow Dan Greenberg, who published a paper this summer in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology called "President Bush's False Flashbulb Memory of 9/11/01." Greenberg says this is more evidence that "flashbulb memories"—major events people remember "like it was yesterday"—are not as indelible as experts thought. (This was proved in a four-year study after the 1986 Challenger explosion, when witnesses dramatically altered their memories of the disaster.)

Greenberg thinks Bush saw the first-tower crash footage replayed so often that it seemed as if he had seen it as it happened. Greenberg struggles to explain why Bush, having remembered events differently in his second recounting, went back to the original version.

The White House declined to comment.

http://www.stevefriess.com/archive/newsweek/bushmemory.htm

The researcher's entire article is available online, but costs
$25. Here's the link:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...639961/ABSTRACT


I found this in an article online:


On the evening of October 4, 1992, shortly after take-off, an El Al
Boeing 747 crashed directly into an eleven story Amsterdam apartment building.
The plane crashed almost straight nose-down, immediately burst into flames,
and fell to the ground. Media coverage never included the crash itself, but
began within the first hour after the crash, and included films of the
ensuing fire and rescue operations. Coverage continued for some time,
and reached most of the country.

In a study appropriately titled "Crashing memories and the
problem of source monitoring", Crombag, Wagenaar, and Van Koppen174 examined the
memories of Dutch citizens exposed to media accounts of the El Al
crash. The authors were interested in the potential for media accounts to cause
reasonably intelligent adults to believe they had witnessed the crash
they could not actually have seen themselves. Although the crash was not
filmed, and never shown on TV, many accounts were given in both television and
written media. In two separate surveys, ten months after the crash, the
authors asked respondents "Did you see the television film of the
moment the plane hit the apartment building?" Those who answered yes were then
asked whether they could remember how long it was until the plane caught
fire. Startlingly, notwithstanding the implausibility of the media having
caught the moment of the crash on film, more than half of the respondents
reported having seen the crash (55% and 66%, in the first and second surveys).
Of those who "remembered" seeing the crash, more than eighty percent
"remembered" when the fire started, although some did so incorrectly.
Many gave vividly detailed descriptions of the crash they could not have
actually seen.

Did these Dutch residents really remember seeing the crash? Did
they just report what they believed happened? If they did remember the
crash, how could these pseudomemories develop, and why didn't the residents
understand that they weren't real? These are the questions examined by memory
researchers concerned with the problem of "source monitoring".175

Crombag et al.'s176 dramatic illustration of the ease with which
we can "remember" things that never were is one among a growing literature
documenting the facility with which false memories can be created, and
the mechanisms through which they are produced.

Crombag et al.,177 for example, attributed the false "crashing
memories" of the Dutch citizens to problems of "source monitoring", or
failure to understand where the vivid images of the crash they
"remembered" came from. The authors argued that the false memories reported by their
respondents were based on vivid internal images the respondents had
created through imagining the various scenes described in the media.
Eventually, experiencing failures of "source monitoring", the respondents confused
these internally created images with actual memory for the event.

Crombag et al.178 suggested that source monitoring failure may be
even more common for memories of dramatic, highly publicized events such as
a plane crash than for more mundane events. Events tending to provoke
both publicity and discussion and to evoke vivid images are more likely to
impair our ability to accurately track the sources of these images.179



I even found a study in which about 45% of the participants
said they'd seen a (nonexistent) film of Princess Diana's car crash:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...511509/ABSTRACT

Len, thats a typical Gillespie rant, the fact that he lumps you and Jack together shows how much attention he really pays to these threads. Think of him as a old dog, mindlessly barking in the night.

As regards your other post, yes I suppose that might have been what happened. Lets just bear in mind two things though.1, The people in the examples given were not possessed of an army of advisors to remind them of the truth of the matter. 2, "I saw the first plane hit the tower, and I thought what a terrible pilot" By the time Bush says these words he is well aware that it was not pilot error. and BTW, in a later interview he says. " Immediately after the first tower was hit I gave orders for our emergency responce to be put into action" How does this square with his earlier statement that he thought it was an accident. Steve.

I thought the article was interesting but didn't think it applied to Bush in this case. I am sure that hearing about the plane crash and Princess Di shocked the test subjects but it didn't directly affect them or require any sort of action on their part. This was a "life defining moment" for him and I seriously doubted that even Bush would have false memories of an event of such paramount importance after so short a period of time. Remember the blank look he had on his face after Card gave him the news? He was a green president with only 10 months experience dealing with national security/military foreign affairs matters and was faced with this countries most serious crisis since Pearl Harbor* and he created a false memory? I found that a bit hard to swallow.

I used past tense above because I read the following yesterday. I think this pretty much eliminates the "false memory" defence. Can't say why he did it but there really is no way to refute it he lied. Note the dateline only 22 days after he said, "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"

Excerpt from:


*FDR on the other hand had over 8 1/2 years on the job and the US had been preparing for possible war with the Axis and an attack by the Japanese was NOT unexpected. Not since Lincol has such an inexperienced president had to deal with such a grave crisis.