Len Colby

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

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

John - As one of the Ed. Forum's "House Republicans" I though you might like to defend your guy Bush from the accusation that he lied about what he saw on 9/11. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st=0#entry43156 Len

Hi Len, That's cute but, much to the chagrin of the Progressives here, I am no Republican (no Democrat, either). But, more to the point, I certainly am no Len, Jack, Nic, or any other of the collection of cretins that constitute the majority of members on this, the Re-Education Forum. The above is awfully presumptive of you, Len. Shall I assume that woman with you is your sister? Oh, I guess I've got your attention. Your little hate piece is typical of why I have shied away from reading ANYTHING on the Re-education Forum. The level of willful anti-intellectualism is astounding. Here's a tip: the Elites, who gain ground on what is left of our freedoms every single day - and who care NOTHING of our views and emotions regarding social issues - love the fact that so many fight with each other over this Left/Right paradigm. Congratulations, Len, you play right into their hands. I have no doubt you believe all the ills of the world have come from whatever it is you think it means when you say "Right Wing." I became a member to be among noted and respected authors and investigative researchers. Quite frankly, that is precisely where I belong. At this point of my life, reflective of my accomplishments, I certainly do NOT feel the need to share anything with you and the other bourgeoisie that I've had to trip over to get to those worth knowing. You wouldn't get it, anyway. Now that I am among the cognoscenti it makes me wonder why I simply don't delete missives from you fools automatically. But you know what, Len, I'm really glad I had this opportunity to tell you off. I leave you to yourselves. Oh, don't bother to write. I won't be reading.

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.

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???

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.

Len, I think I may know why Bush told this lie. (If lie it was) ...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?

Jack [and other 9/11 CTists]

I am still waiting for you to name one expert who backs your views about the collapse of the Towers and damage to the Pentagon.

Since neither you nor anyother CTist can find any lets presume there are none doesn't that put your little theories into a bad light? Doesn't this justify my comparrison of such ideas to Creation "science" and Holocaust denial?

To try and return to the original thrust of this topic, research, like any scientific discipline, needs to be constantly tested using ones original hypothesis. ie my hypothesis might be stated as, "It is a provable fact that historically governments have acted against the best interests of their citizens for strategic, and finacial considerations. Given their stated aims, (PNAC) and their desire to control oil interests in the middle east I BELIEVE that the Bush administration deliberately created an environment that invited terrorist attacks against mainland America, and used such as a justification for 1, invasion of Afganistan, and Iraq. 2, to demonise political opponents as unpatriotic. 3, to portray Bush in a more positive light as a war leader. 4, to allow easy passage of anti-democratic legislation (Patriot act) 5, for the continued enrichment of political fellow travellers, and corporate America in general."

My research journey thus far has taken me to some strange shores, it now appears to me that at their farthest ends it is almost impossible to distinguish left, from right, and a constant theme here is anti-semitism "protocols of the elders of zion" The Illuminatti""One World government" through either Communism, facism, Capitalism, or a strange hybrid of all three, with of course Jews at the head. People who fail to constantly test their hypothesis inlight of new information, or who simply want easy answers find this strange brew compelling, it requires little of them, and as Len stated at the beginning of this thread resembles, at its end, the more dogmatic of religious belief. researchers need to beware who they get into bed with philosophically, as the old saying goes, "never make friends in the dark. Steve.

Hi Steve,

"It is a provable fact that historically governments have acted against the best interests of their citizens for strategic, and financial considerations"

IMHO you're over stating the case at least regarding democratic countries. This might be a good subject for a new thread.

I BELIEVE that the Bush administration deliberately created an environment that invited terrorist attacks against mainland America, and used such as a justification for...

Atta started contacting flight schools in March 2000, 10 months before Bush came to power and 8 months before he "won" the election. Presumambly the plan had been made before then. Also IIRC Bush's pre 9/11 Middle East policy wasn't that different from Clinton's. I think he used the attacks for justification to do all the things you mentioned. They seem to have had these ideas "on the shelf" waiting for the right moment.

It is also possible that they found out about the attacks and did nothing to prevent them though I haven't seen any strong evidence to indicate that. At the least the Bush administration was woefully negligent and Clinton isn't off the hook either

I agree with the rest of what you said

I have to chuckle at Jack's "..some of my best friends are Jewish.." because long before "Archie Bunker"

["All in The Family" television series] left the United Kingdom's "Telly" for the Colonies -- That very expression ["some of"] was considered to be a serious racial epithet !!

My dad was born in Germany in 1915. Apparently it was common for Nazi's to say things like "I know one good Jew". Before they came to power many Jews would joke, " The bad news is that the Nazi Party is growing in popularity, the good news is that means there are a lot more good Jews around", that stopped being funny January 20, 1933.

Again I not saying anything about Jack's beliefs. It's just that his comment and Gerry's reply reminded me of my dad's story.

Thnx Stephen

Mr. Jack, have you had the chance for checking the clavius site? thnx

See post 8 above. LOL

Rosa Parks is perhaps the preeminent example of how a simple act by a simple person can change history.

I was born in North Carolina in 1965 and move to NYC with my mom and sister in 1970. My dad stayed in NC until 1981 so I visited the state frequently. One thing I notices is that is was far more common to see Blacks and Whites interacting socially in NC than in NYC. I believe before Rosa Parks refused to get out of her seat one would never see members of the two races speaking with each other in the South.

In 1988 she told Jack Anderson ...

On 24th February, 1992, Brown gave an interview on the television show, A Current Affair. Brown claimed that on the 21st November, 1963, she was at the home of Clint Murchison...[she claimed LBJ told her] "After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise."

Despite being responsible for some important scoops Jack Anderson does not have a very good reputation for reliability.

LBJ was a very shrewd character. I doesn't make sense that he would make such and incriminating statement to his mistress.

John already destroyed the story about the party in addition it doesn't make sense that such well know figures as LBJ, Hoover and Nixon would meet so publicly the night before the "hit".

What would have been the motive for reactionaries like Nixon and Hoover to want to make LBJ president at that time, virtually guaranteeing he would be elected in '64 and probably reelected in '68?

Bernice , you chide the men on this forum for denigrating Brown without any evidence and say that history has redeemed her, but you didn't cite a single bit of evidence to support your claim. Isn't that a double standard? Can you cite some examples?

Jack once again you are making accusations without citing any evidence and remain silent when people ask you for some.

Lets look at the performance of the Secret Service on the day in question, I have to admit that after giving this much thought my original position has modified somewhat. Here,s how my original thinking went. After the second Tower has been struck it becomes obvious that a serious terrorist attack is under way, the administration later admitted that at this point they had no idea how many planes had been hijacked, nor their intended targets, at this point it is the S/S main priority to remove the President to a place of safety, as they signally failed to do this they must have known that Bush was in no danger, ergo the only way of knowing this for sure is foreknowledge of the attacks, we can call this theory" Why didn't the dogs bark"

I now have a problem with this, after putting aside my personel dislike of Bush, and testing my hypothesis, something occured to me. Why would the mastermind who planned this( and it sure wouldn't be Bush) not ensure that everything played out by strict protocol, If I had been in, Oh lets say Roves shoes, I would have made sure that a phalanx of S/S agents got him out pronto, make everything look like normal procedure. Bush could then have made a grand speech, with his arms around a couple of the children, and then departed for Washington DC in Airforce one. In other words he gets to look resolute, and statesman like, rather than the scared little rich boy running away. We can call this theory "Usual Bushian f*** up."

What do members think? Steve.

Steve, I already made the same point on the "Do any civil engineers..." thread. I therefore claim exclusive rights to it's use on this forum.

I will send a you bill for royalties shortly!!!

To CTists Bush's behaviour that morning is evidence that he already knew. I disagree. I think if anything it is evidence he didn't know. Bush was widely criticized for not ending the photo-op immediately and taking charge. I imagine if Bush and Rove planned 9/11 they would not have put him in such a ridiculous situation. That would have scripted a way for him to look more presidential. Bush and Rove aren't stupid and if they knew what was coming they would not have squandered a chance for Bush to appear presidential and heroic. Remember when the stuffed socks in the crotch of his flightsuit on the aircraft carrier? Instead he looked like a buffoon

Whenever the President goes somewhere, he is accompanied by an AWACS and fighter escort.

I don't think that was true in this case. Airforce took off WITHOUT fighter escort. this fed a lot of speculation by CT types. The explaination given bu the Bush camp was that they felt he was safer in the air. Also fighters and AWACS wouldn't do much good if Bush were to be the victim of a landbased or missile attack.

Bumbling rather than a conspiracy is the most likely explaination.

Len

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

Gerry, I stand corrected, that should have read"Some of my clients are of the Jewish faith." Steve.

Steve, I think you were closer to the truth the first time. Being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. Or perhaps I should say ethnicities since there a few groups. The biggest is the Ashkenazim - those whose families came from northern, central and eastern Europe, their 'distant cousins' the Sephardis whose families came from the Mediterranean / Middle East and some smaller some times racially distinct groups like the Falashas [Ethiopian Jews] Asiatic Jews. There is a good article in wikipedia on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions.

There are also people who aren't ethnically Jewish but are converts [like Gary's relatives]. Their is probably no other ethnic group that is harder to define. I consider myself a cultural Jew or ethnically Jewish despite atheist/agnostic. All my ancestors as far back as can be traced were Jews but I don't believe in God, I met an African-American woman in NYC who converted to Orthodox Judaism and there are people of "Jewish extraction" but have renounced there heritage converted to Christianity and become anti-Semites like Israel Shank and R. Leland Lerman. So saying who and who isn't Jewish can be complicated.

You could say "Some of my clients are Jewish" and that would cover converts and people like me.

The Mossad is pervasive, however, in many nefarious activities.

True but the same could be said about the CIA or MI6 etc. Also there all sorts of nuts out there many of them associated with neo-Nazi's who blame the Mossad for everything from the murders of JFK*, RFK*, MLK*, Rafi Hariri and John-John, to the attempt on Bush sr., the Bali bombings, Lockerbie, 9/11, Watergate*, the Lewinski scandal*, the London and Madrid bombings. and the priest sex abuse scandals in the US*

Your friend Fetzer linked an article from an anti-Semitic website written by a neo-Nazi making the accusations marked with an * off the menu bar of the homepage of his website because he found it "interesting". The author ascribes the JFK Assassination to a 'Jewish conspiracy' although he never uses those words, between the Mossad, Jewish mobsters, the Bofman family and other Jews. No non-Jews are mentioned as players in the murder.

(This article http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/piper1.htm

is linked off of the Home page of Fetzer's site http://assassinationscience.com/ see the "The American Media" link)

I found a few other articles with anti-Semitic content. I am not suggesting he is anti-Semitic just that he should show better judgement in deciding what to put up on his website.

And Jack even you started the "Who killed John-John" with a link to a ridiculous article alleging the Bushs, Clintons and Mossad teamed up to kill the son of JFK, I still can't figure out if you put that up as a joke or were serious.

blue text added in edit

Whoa, folks thats my last post on this subject, some of my clients at work are of Jewish extraction,and as the theraputic relationships I attempt to biuld are based on trust, and cooperation it is professional suicide for my name to be linked with anti-semetic beliefs in any way shape or form, I know this is not what was meant, but inferences are so easily drawn, and once formed, damned difficult to dispel. I dissassociate myself from any web-sites, weblogs, books or articles, that attempt to link the events of Sept 11th 2001 to any kind of Jewish conspiracy, cabal, or assorted nonsence.. Stephen Turner.

Steve,

As one of the more thoughtful members of this forum I would value your continued participation in this thread.

I'm Jewish if any such accusations crop up I will give you official dispensation - LOL

One of the silliest arguments that 9/11 CTist put forward is the "the hole in the Pentagon is to small" nonsense.

On July 28, 1945 a B -25 Mitchell bomber crashed into the 34th Street side if the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. The wingspan of the plane was 68 feet [21 meters] ( http://www.acepilots.com/planes/b25.html ), I couldn't find specs. for the size of the fuselage but it apears to be about 10 feet x 10 feet [3 x 3 meters]. The resulting hole was only 5 x 6 meters [16.5 x 20 feet] ( http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...News8-0112.html ) the hole was less than a third of the wingspan but was slightly larger than the size of the fuselage.

A 757 has a much wider wingspan than a B-25, 124 feet, but it's fuselage is about the same size 12.3 x 13.5 feet. The hole in the Pentagon was about 16 x 20 feet [ http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html ] just about the same size as the hole in the Empire State Building.

The abovetopsecret link above offers an excellent debunking of the "no plane hit the Pentagon" BS. Ironiclly ATS is a CT site.

Maya and Evan,

I hope you have comfortable chairs because as they say here Brazil, you'd better 'espera sentada' [wait sitting] for Jack to reply.

Len

I asked Jack White and other 9/11 CTists [in other forums] if they could name any civil engineers or architects who back their contention that the collapse of the WTC buildings was due to controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was hit by missile. So far all they've been able to come up with are two engineers and an "architect". The engineers made vague comments a few days after 9/11, before any research had been done. One said he was misunderstood [Romero] and the other [shi] hasn't been heard from since. David Heller the "architect" it turns out isn't really an architect. He has a MA from the San Francisco Institute of Architecture, but the school is an unaccredited* "diploma mill" [which means its graduates can't apply for licensing or legally work as architects]. Nor does SFIA offer courses in the engineering side of architecture which would justify calling him and expert. Typical classes taught are "3-D MODELING THE EASY WAY", "COMMUNICATING YOUR DESIGNS: PERSPECTIVE DRAWING & MEDIA", and "Buddhist Architecture" **.

[click this link for more details http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5153 ]

This to me raises a basic question. If the FEMA/NIST/American Society of Civil Engineers report was so obviously wrong I would expect hundreds of architects, civil and structural engineers to question its findings but apparently not a single one has.

One CTist objected when I compared his theories to creation science, but the parallels are striking. Like creation science and Holocaust denial, "WTC was a demolition job"/ "a missile hit the Pentagon" CTs have no backing from experts in the field. Proponents of all three theories trot out "experts" with advanced degrees, but they are all in unrelated subjects, there are PhDs in Political Science and Electrical Engineering who say the Holocaust was a hoax, and PhDs in Philosophy and Classics who say God created the World in six days, and you have PhDs in Chemistry and Kinesiology who say the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition etc.

Another similarity is that all three "theories" are ideologically based: backers of creation science are fundamentalist Christians, WTC/Pentagon CTists by and large have extreme right or extreme left political views and Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites.

I know it's not fair to tar the entire "9/11 Truth Movement" with this but Holocaust deniers all back the 9/11 CTs. The American Free Press, Christopher Bollyn, John Kaminski, Serendipity, Rense, 9-11 Strike.com, Jane Christensen, David Irving, whatreallyhappened.com, and APFN are just a few of the people/sites that deny the Holocaust and push 9/11 CTs.

I t's not the entire "9/11 Trurh" movement but there is a strong anti-Semetic undercurrent to many of the CT's [indeed many of the CTist are Jewish themselves] :

1] "No Jews [or Israelis] were killed in the WTC, they were warned to stay at home",

2] "9/11 was carried out by the Jewish controlled NWO in order to justify a war for Israel",

3] Despite the fact Bush has no Jews in his cabinet, many CTs say that 2nd level Jewish [aka dual loyalists] sub-Secretaries and advisers like Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol are the ones who really control the Bush administration [the old ZOG myth].

4] "Larry Silverstein was in on it as part of an insurance scam", many of the people who push this make a point of pointing out his heritage.

5] The "Jewish controlled media" is said to be responsible for covering up the truth about 9/11

As far as I can tell oilempire.com [whose webmaster is Jewish] and democraticunderground.com are the only "9/11 Truth" sites to renounce connection with anti-Semites.

I find it disturbing that people who purport to be progressive/liberal/Socialist etc. seem to be all to willing to cooperate with people who have such repugnant views.

* http://www.sfia.net/FAQ.asp

** http://www.sfia.net/Courses.asp

Len, thanks for your responce. I will dig around and provide the links you ask for. I should say that they appeared in the London Times, a very serious, right wing publication not known for conspiracy theories.

just for the record, my postion on this subject is not that "the govmint" did it, but that for poitical, and strategic gain, they turned a blind eye to evidence that should have set alarm bells ringing. I will attempt to develope this in a series of questions on this thread. Look foward to debating with you..Steve.

It might be more of a conversation than a debate, our positions aren't that far apart. If you find reliable info showing that Bush knew, I won't challenge it just for the sake of debate. I hate Bush, his father was bad enough but atleast Bush Sr. wasn't crazy.

What do you think about all those "WTC was a demo job" "the hole in the Pentagon was too small it was hit by a missle" theories?

Steve,

Can you provide a link to those articles.

You do raise some very good questions. Part of the problem is that Intelligence agencies recieve a multitude of warnings and reports of possibly pending attacks. Too many indeed to pass them all to the White House. The first part of their job is intelligence gathering, the second part is assesment to detmine if the reports are reliable. There were undoubtably many failures in both areas especially during the Bush administration which virtually ignored the threat of terrorism. Another problem is that a lot of intelligence is not actionable, it's not specific enough to take action. It's possible that if the political leadership had shown more interest the inteligence agencies might have done more verify and get more details regarding those threats, but that unfortunately wasn't the case.

Was there something more sinester in these "failures"? Did the Bush "junta" plan or have foreknowledge of the attacks? Possible but I have yet to see any convincing evidence.

IIRC it's not correct to say the US had repeated warnings of the WTC being targeted. Some documents were captured in the Phillipeans which out lined a 9/11 like attack on the towers but that was the only indication I have heard of that they would be attacked.

I am not sure that allegations that, "all...possible measures [to prevent the attacks] were cut short, such was the case with ongoing investigations by FBI agents attempting to confirm the impending 11th Sept terrorist attacks, whose leads were severed by FBI command without explanation, a situation maintained with the complicity of the Attorney General" have been substatiated. Again a link back to the articles would be helpful.

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 xxxx, 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.

Jack,

I'm still waiting for you to cite a single qualified expert [i.e. civil/structural engineer or LISENCED architect] who says that the WTC collapse was a demolition job. If the FEMA/Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers report is so wrong one would expect there to be large number of them to be raising questions but you can't find one. You inability to get expert backing puts your 'theories' in the same league as 'creation science' and 'Holocaust denial'

Also you have yet to defend your dismissal of the Popular Mechanics article.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y

See posts 13 & 14 on pg 1 and 29 on pg. 2

Why don't we throw the Pentagon into the mix too. Got anyone with the requisite technical background who says the hole is too small to have been mave by a [iIRC] 757?

Len

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

I just have one thing to say about number 4

Bush said "I saw a plane hit the tower".

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?

I saw (that) a plane hit the tower.

Completely changes the meaning doesn't it?

Can you say definitively that he meant exactly what you think he meant?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 xxxx. 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.

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.

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

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

see above

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

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