WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[Stundie]

Why look for something for which there was no evidence for in the first place?

There was explosions sounds, so therefore there is evidence to look for in the first place and the fact it was never looked for, doesn't disprove the existence of explosives.

Of course fire brought down the WTC buildings and findings from demolition experts, civil and structural engineers, have confirmed that fire brought down the WTC buildings.

Sorry but not all of them agree and your demolition expert, well he ain't really an expert is he?? lol

To prove my point, where's your evidence that fire did not bring down the WTC buildings?

You never explained why you keep asking for something which you clearly believe doesn't exist.

Since you have been unable to do so over the months when asked, you simply have no case.

That is because the only evidence you accept as evidence is what you want to believe, you ignore anything which proves you wrong. lol

Considering that what you have been posting has been determined to be false and misleading information, what more is there to say?!

Considering that what you have been posting is spam, it proves that you are incapable of formulating your own arguments. What more is there to say?? lol

The laws of physics have already proven my case, not yours, so just consider yourself just another duped victim who didn't bother to do his homework to understand how he was duped.

Of course, the laws of physics say that if 2 objects made of the same materials but with different masses physically collide, the smaller one will always win according to debunker logic........lol

Its not my fault you do not have the mental capacity to grasp this simple failure of your debunking logic and why debunkers can't explain the physics of the collapse without involving voodoo and Bazant! lol

[Stundie]

I should also add that long before 9/11, the empire state building had a plane hit it and it never collapsed. Yes, we know the boeings are different B25's and the empire state building is a different design, the point is plane hit buildings and building collapses is not factually accurate when it took out not 2 but 3 buildings.

None of those structures you mentioned were struck by a B-767 nor suffered serious impact damages on the level suffered by WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, whereas the impacts dislodged fire protection and exposed their steel structures to temperatures high enough to melt aluminum and weaken steel, but far too low to melt steel.

hahahaha!! Talk about predictable.

I'm sure that the Empire State Building didn't have fire protection back in 1945 making your point invalid.

Might I also point out that the back in 1946, the 70 floor Trump Building which was built back in the 1930's was hit by a C-45 Aircraft it never collapsed.

Might I also point out the more recent case of a small plane crashing into the 50 floor Belaire apartments in 2006 and they never collapsed.

So that is 3 other buildings, all hit by a plane, caught fire but never collapsed. Yes, they were not 767 and we know that the other buildings were not the WTC either but your point of plane hits building, catches fire and building collapses is not based on any previous or historical evidence other than on 9/11.

Probably cause there were bombs aiding the collapse. lol

Yes did they because you'd failed to understand or read the rest of the story, perhaps you'd overlooked what has already been presented and known by demolition and structural experts and civil engineers. Since it seems that you've overlooked very important facts, evidence and other issues, here they are again.

Sorry but I didn't read all your spam cause a lot of it is complete nonsense. lol

Now once again, where is your evidence that fire was NOT responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?

It doesn't exist because of your ignorance...lol

Or, do I have to post more information, data, facts and evidence in addtion to other facts and evidence that has already debunked your false claims?

Well I'm sure you will fill the need to spam the forum some more.....lol

[skyeagle409]

There was explosions sounds, so therefore there is evidence to look for in the first place and the fact it was never looked for, doesn't disprove the existence of explosives.

The sounds of explosions were later determined were not from explosives and I have posted the comments of those who heard those sounds and have indicated the sounds they heard were not from bomb explosives.

Now, if you have any questions as to what they have said in regard to the sounds they heard, you can review their comments here. I am posting their comments in case you overlooked their comments earlier.

The Elevator Man's Tale

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

http://www.thrnewmed...ember/jones.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from: "8 Hurt as Trade Center Elevator Rams Ceiling" by Dan Kadison, Adam Miller, Erika Martinez and Cathy Burke,New York Post,August 12, 2000, p.4.

The express elevator to the Sky Lobby at the World Trade Center roared 24 feet past its stop and slammed into a ceiling 960 feet above ground yesterday, injuring eight of 12 people trapped inside.

The trapped passengers - who were stuck in Elevator No. 20 about 15 feet above the 78th floor at Two World Trade Center - had to be escorted to safety in a heart-stopping operation conducted from the roof of a second, adjacent elevator.

"We didn't know if we would get out alive," Queens resident Richard Gallo, an electrical engineer at the building, told his wife, Helen. "Everyone was screaming. There was blood all over the place. We were really scared that the elevator was going to plunge to the ground...." "I've been riding the elevator for years" [added a co-worker]. "Occasionally they slip, it's not something you can focus on." Others [present] described the crash as sounding like a horrendous "boom." People "thought it was a bomb," said Kim Dunlap, a receptionist on the 100th floor. It rocked the building.

There's never a dull moment at the World Trade Center."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As soon as we arrived, 84, a massive explosion goes off, and at this point we didn't know what it was. We thought it was a secondary explosion. We didn't know that it was a second plane. In fact, I didn't know there was a second plane until much later in the evening.

http://www.npr.org/d...rds/delgado.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We figured by the time we got to the fifth or sixth floor, that’s when the south tower was hit. I had no idea the south tower was hit, and I don’t think that Chief Jonas – Captain Jonas at the time – or Lieutenant Foti knew at that point either. I remember the whole north tower literally vibrated. The only way I can explain it is if you were at the edge of a subway platform and the train was coming in, you felt that wind and the sound, but with an added effect like the floor vibrated. Everybody just cringed and really was not sure what was going on. I just assumed that it was something above us.

I had no idea that the south tower was hit.

http://www.firehouse.../gz/blaich.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As we got near the top of the escalator that brings you to ground level from five floors below, we heard what sounded like a bomb going off," Seebode said. "It was the second plane hitting World Trade Center."

http://www.hq.usace....v01/story18.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.

http://prisonplanet....e_cacchioli.htm

Now, let's read the rest of the story.

Why did Louie Cacchioli become upset?

Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

http://www.arcticbea...9-Jul-2005.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Susan W. F.

"We were ushered into the Port Authority office on the 78th floor... As I turned to watch some of my fellow co-workers making phone calls, there was a second ka-boom, the building shook again and debris started hitting the windows... I thought some part of the plane or some part of the building that had been hit by the plane had exploded and debris was sliding down from the floors above us. I would later learn it was a second airplane diving into the other tower and it was debris from that explosion hitting the windows."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower,somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the ai:r being compressed and that is the floor that let go.

http://www.nytimes.c...Turi_Albert.txt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

http://www.nytimes.c...Dixon_Brian.txt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.c...ory_Stephen.txt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).

http://911review.com...iffin/nyc1.html

Now, the rest of Mr. Carlen's story.

...there were about ten explosions...At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110505.PDF

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.

http://a1022.g.akama...pdf/9110287.pdf

As you can seen, no one attributed the sounds their heard to bombs.

Sorry but not all of them agree and your demolition expert, well he ain't really an expert is he??

Well, read the comments of those who reportedly heard the explosions. Apparently, they did not attribute the sounds they heard to bombs.

I tell you what, why don't you call them and tell them that fires are much better at demolition than explosives as 9/11 proved.

Using your own logic, explosives are not good enough either. Check it out and explain to us why bombs were unable to collapse these buildings. Some buildings took multiple bomb strikes and yet, remained standing.

I'm sure they can't wait to hear how fires can weaken steel and cause an entire building to collapse in a matter of hours...

It is all very simple.

Temperature and Strength of Metals

Influence of temperature on the strength of metals

Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength.

Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature).

And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then get a lot weaker at higher temperatures

http://www.engineeri...gth-d_1353.html

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail.

Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

And of course, we have these facts.

What Seismic Data Revealed about the Collapse of the WTC Buildings

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the SouthTower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground.

Translation: no bombs.

http://www.southernc...org/41/9-11.htm

And as the world saw on video, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapsed due to fire and to underline that fact once again; no explosives were used to demolish those buildings.

Edited August 13, 2013 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

The Wheel`s on the Short Buss Go Round & Round ! Skyeagle ,Man we just need to take a few of these peeps on the Way-back machine to 9/11 and let them actually watch the coverage of the event As it took place ! IT would take An Idiot to not see and understand what Happened ! It Boggles the Mind !

On your Six and Full Throttle !

[skyeagle409]

I'm sure that the Empire State Building didn't have fire protection back in 1945 making your point invalid.

On the contrary, it proved my point because the Empire State Building was not struck by a B-767 nor suffered the massive impact damage on the level of the WTC buildings. BIG differences.

Might I also point out that the back in 1946, the 70 floor Trump Building which was built back in the 1930's was hit by a C-45 Aircraft it never collapsed.

The C-45 was a very small aircraft compared to a B-767 nor capable of carrying the fuel load of a B-767. Once again, BIG differences. The 21-story steel frame building in Mexico City collapsed in an earthquake and did so without explosives.

[skyeagle409]

The Wheel`s on the Short Buss Go Round & Round ! Skyeagle ,Man we just need to take a few of these peeps on the Way-back machine to 9/11 and let them actually watch the coverage of the event As it took place ! IT would take An Idiot to not see and understand what Happened ! It Boggles the Mind !

On your Six and Full Throttle !

Simply amazing how demolition experts, civil and structural engineers and firefighters have said the WTC buildings collapsed due to fire and they provide undeniable evidence to backup their conclusions and yet, an individual says that fire could not have caused the collapse of the WTC buildings despite the evidence presented to him on a silver platter.

The amazing thing about that is, he has been dismissing the conclusions of firefighters, structural and demolition experts and their evidence in regard to the collapse of the WTC buildings, and instead, he substitutes a blank page as his evidence. Simply amazing!

Edited August 13, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

FEMA and the NIST reports do not debunk Gage you dong for the simple fact that these reports were produced before Gage criticised them.

Of course the paper's of Richard Gage have been debunked and in addition, Richard Gage has been caught lying on video as well.

Edited August 13, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

skyeagle409, on 11 August 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Now once again, where is your evidence that fire was NOT responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?

It doesn't exist...

Which explains why you have been able to present such evidence.

...because of your ignorance...

Because of "my ignorance?" Well, let's take another look.

The Collapse of the WTC Buildings

Collapse initiation

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse.

In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.

Initial opinions and analysis

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, numerous structural engineers and experts spoke to the media, describing what they thought caused the towers to collapse. Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained that the high temperatures in the fires weakened the steel beams and columns, causing them to become "soft and mushy", and eventually they were unable to support the structure above. Astaneh also suggested that the fireproofing became dislodged during the initial aircraft impacts.

He also explained that, once the initial structural failure occurred, progressive collapse of the entire structure was inevitable. Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."

On September 13, 2001, Zdeněk Bažant, professor of civil engineering and materials science at Northwestern University, circulated a draft paper with results of a simple analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Bažant suggested that heat from the fires was a key factor, causing steel columns in both the core and the perimeter to weaken and experience deformation before losing their carrying capacity and buckling.

Once more than half of the columns on a particular floor buckled, the overhead structure could no longer be supported and complete collapse of the structures occurred. Bažant later published an expanded version of this analysis.

http://en.wikipedia....ld_Trade_Center

Now, what was that you were saying?!

That is because the only evidence you accept as evidence is what you want to believe, you ignore anything which proves you wrong.

Prove me wrong?! Have you forgotten that structural and civil engineers, firefighters, demolition experts, investigators, and the laws of physics have already proven you wrong?!

It has been 12 years since the 911 attacks, so where is your evidence that fire was NOT responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings? WTC4 suffered an internal collapse due to fire, not explosives, so where is your evidence that explosives were responsible for the collapse of the 911 buildings when no one heard nor saw bomb explosions or even recovered bomb-related hardware evidence anywhere on ground zero?

To simply put it in simple words, you have presented zero evidence that fire was NOT responsibe for the collapse of the WTC buildings and the reason why you have failed to present zero evidence is because no such evidence exist.

The reason why I am asking you for evidence is that after 12 years, not one shred of evidence has surface which implicates the U.S. government in the 911 attacks, and that explains why firefighters, structural and civil engineers, demolition experts, and investigators concluded that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the 911 buildings.

Edited August 14, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Me thinks Baberuth need to do a Bill Nye the Science Guy experiment ! re-enact the compression of the WTC towers coming down upon oneself. I bet there will be no parts but little fiddley bits found of BR ?

Isn't it amazing that that 911 conspiracy theories are based on pure ignorance of the facts?! It has been 12 years, and yet, not one single shred of evidence has surfaced during all of those years that implicates the U.S. government in the 911 attack.

What we have seen over those years are a number of conspiracy theories crashing in flames, conspiracy theories which have been shot down by facts and evidence.

Edited October 30, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Only in your and Don's tortured minds Sky.

[skyeagle409]

Only in your and Don's tortured minds Sky.

Considering that after 12 years, you have failed to produce evidence, what more is there to say?!

[Babe Ruth]

To you, nothing.

[skyeagle409]

To you, nothing.

Thank you for finally confirming that "nothing" is what you have provided in the way of evidence.

[DONTEATUS]

Considering that after 12 years, you have failed to produce evidence, what more is there to say?!

THe only one tortured Babe Ruth Is you ,It will be nice to read someday that you now understand what false information you have believed in for all these years !

[+joc]

I don't think there was a conspiracy to bring down the towers...but...I still have one lingering question. About Bush:

I know exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first heard about a plane hitting the Towers. So does everyone else...except Bush. He told an audience:

President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting

[CNN, Aired December 4, 2001]

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

Apparently he had a lapse of memory...but I recall Paul Harvey telling us all about Bush' amazing ability to remember small bits of detail..how he would memorize entire flight plans almost effortlessly...but he doesn't remember where he was when he first heard about the plane hitting the WTC?

So...'splain me please....

[frenat]

What do you mean he doesn't remember where he was? Your own quote has him saying where he was. He saw on TV that the first plane had hit the tower. At the time it was thought to be an accident and that's what he thought. He was in the classroom when he heard about the second plane. How in the world do you get from all of that that he doesn't remember where he was?

[+joc]

What do you mean he doesn't remember where he was? Your own quote has him saying where he was. He saw on TV that the first plane had hit the tower. At the time it was thought to be an accident and that's what he thought. He was in the classroom when he heard about the second plane. How in the world do you get from all of that that he doesn't remember where he was?

Because no one 'saw' the first plane hit the building until the 'day after'....there was no video footage when it happened....and ....there wasn't a TV anywhere in sight at the school building he entered. So, why would he fabricate a story about where he was when he first heard about the first plane? And we know, where he was...he was about to leave his hotel suite to go to the school.

[media=]

[/media]

9/11 news report with John Cochran in Sarasota Florida reporting that the president knew about the plane crash before leaving for the elementary school,""... he got up out of his hotel suite this morning was about to leave, reporters saw The White House chief of staff Andy Card whisper into his ear, reporters said to the president, "Do you know what is going on in New York", he said he did, and said he will have something to say about it later.""

which contradicts what he later said twice which is that he first knew about the plane hitting the WTC outside the classroom.

[Babe Ruth]

Actually, some people DID see the first airplane strike the tower, and many if not all of them called the police to report it. The interesting detail is that many of those reporting the incident described the airplane as being smaller, NOT an airliner.

Joc is correct though, President Bush could not have seen the first strike because he was in Florida. He was making that bit up about seeing it, and of course the mainstream media forgives that lie, just as it forgives so many other false stories the man told.

They put Martha Stewart in jail for lying to FBI agents, but James Clapper can lie to Congress and nothing happens, and President Bush lies to the world and congress, and admits to felony activity to congress, and not a word from the media.

[+Liquid Gardens]

9/11 news report with John Cochran in Sarasota Florida reporting that the president knew about the plane crash before leaving for the elementary school,""... he got up out of his hotel suite this morning was about to leave, reporters saw The White House chief of staff Andy Card whisper into his ear, reporters said to the president, "Do you know what is going on in New York", he said he did, and said he will have something to say about it later.""

which contradicts what he later said twice which is that he first knew about the plane hitting the WTC outside the classroom.

I think this might be reading too much into it. First off, this is Bush, no one is going to accuse him of being the most eloquent speaker, especially with off the cuff remarks. He was not asked about what he felt when he 'first' knew about the plane hitting the tower, he was asked how he felt when he heard about the terrorist attack; it was unknown until the second plane hit that it was for sure terrorism. You're right, he couldn't literally have seen the first airplane hit the tower, but all we need to do is add the word 'had', as in 'he had seen an airplane had hit the tower', and this all fits in with the chain of events: he found out before getting to the school that there was a plane crash in New York, saw the actual news coverage of it at the school, and then the second plane hit and he found out it was terrorism. I don't know about his memory, it may very well have been bad and he could just be confused and he did mean everything literally, but again it's pretty well known that he can produce some pretty mangled sentences when he speaks so I'm leaning towards that.

[frenat]

Because no one 'saw' the first plane hit the building until the 'day after'....there was no video footage when it happened....and ....there wasn't a TV anywhere in sight at the school building he entered. So, why would he fabricate a story about where he was when he first heard about the first plane? And we know, where he was...he was about to leave his hotel suite to go to the school.

[media=]

[/media]

9/11 news report with John Cochran in Sarasota Florida reporting that the president knew about the plane crash before leaving for the elementary school,""... he got up out of his hotel suite this morning was about to leave, reporters saw The White House chief of staff Andy Card whisper into his ear, reporters said to the president, "Do you know what is going on in New York", he said he did, and said he will have something to say about it later.""

which contradicts what he later said twice which is that he first knew about the plane hitting the WTC outside the classroom.

Read it again. Are you SURE what tense he is using when he says he "saw an airplane hit the tower"? It could very well be past tense meaning he saw that an airplane had hit the tower just like everyone else saw on TV. No tv in sight at the school? Have you been in a school in the last 30 years? There are TVs EVERYWHERE. They are in every room. You are assuming that he used the present tense and spoke exactly correctly when this is a president that had websites devoted to his verbal flubs.

[skyeagle409]

Actually, some people DID see the first airplane strike the tower, and many if not all of them called the police to report it. The interesting detail is that many of those reporting the incident described the airplane as being smaller, NOT an airliner.

Let's take a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqo4oh-AzU

Wreckage of United 175

[DONTEATUS]

Time to turn out the Lights Skyeagle ! Looks like all the crazy`s are now swept under the drywall !

Have a Great thank`s Giving !

[+joc]

Read it again. Are you SURE what tense he is using when he says he "saw an airplane hit the tower"? It could very well be past tense meaning he saw that an airplane had hit the tower just like everyone else saw on TV. No tv in sight at the school? Have you been in a school in the last 30 years? There are TVs EVERYWHERE. They are in every room. You are assuming that he used the present tense and spoke exactly correctly when this is a president that had websites devoted to his verbal flubs.

Verbal Flubs be damned! EVERYONE knows exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the first news story. But see, he did tell the truth when he said that he said, "Must have been a horrible pilot"...that is true...but he did NOT see the plane hit the building...it wasn't shown as a video until the following day. He was NOT watching TV outside the classroom...there wasn't one...Superintendent says there wasn't. He didn't just give that account once...he gave it again in another interview.

So the question is: why didn't he just say what the truth was? Why didn't he say: Well Jordan, when I was first told what happened as I was leaving to come over here...I thought, What a horrible Pilot...and I felt bad for New York and told my staff to give NY whatever they needed.

When I was told of the second plane, in the classroom...I had a deep, sickening feeling...etc.

Why did he say something that was NOT the truth? THAT is the question.

And yes SkyEagle...lots of people saw the first plane hit...but NO ONE saw it on TV until the following day. ...and , I remember the news story I heard that morning that a 'small plane' hit a building.

Edited November 7, 2013 by joc

[frenat]

Verbal Flubs be damned! EVERYONE knows exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the first news story. But see, he did tell the truth when he said that he said, "Must have been a horrible pilot"...that is true...but he did NOT see the plane hit the building...it wasn't shown as a video until the following day. He was NOT watching TV outside the classroom...there wasn't one...Superintendent says there wasn't. He didn't just give that account once...he gave it again in another interview.

So the question is: why didn't he just say what the truth was? Why didn't he say: Well Jordan, when I was first told what happened as I was leaving to come over here...I thought, What a horrible Pilot...and I felt bad for New York and told my staff to give NY whatever they needed.

When I was told of the second plane, in the classroom...I had a deep, sickening feeling...etc.

Why did he say something that was NOT the truth? THAT is the question.

And yes SkyEagle...lots of people saw the first plane hit...but NO ONE saw it on TV until the following day. ...and , I remember the news story I heard that morning that a 'small plane' hit a building.

So you KNOW he was using present tense and not past tense even though both could be phrased the same way? He said he "saw a plane hit the tower". That can be either present tense or past tense (with an implied "had"). LOTS of people leave out the word "had" in similar phrases. Or are you trying to say he had some secret TV feed so he could watch the impact live? What, would he need to steer the plane in himself? The implied "had" makes sense. I highly doubt there were no TVs in the school he could have seen. Most schools have them nearly everywhere. What EXACTLY did the superintendent supposedly say?

[+joc]

So you KNOW he was using present tense and not past tense even though both could be phrased the same way? He said he "saw a plane hit the tower". That can be either present tense or past tense (with an implied "had"). LOTS of people leave out the word "had" in similar phrases. Or are you trying to say he had some secret TV feed so he could watch the impact live? What, would he need to steer the plane in himself? The implied "had" makes sense. I highly doubt there were no TVs in the school he could have seen. Most schools have them nearly everywhere. What EXACTLY did the superintendent supposedly say?

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

Let's walk through this together shall we? He starts to say that Andy Card came in the class room and told him...but then he reflects back to 'before the classroom'. He clearly says he was sitting 'outside of the classroom waiting to go in'...so the next phrasing obviously goes with that...And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on,..He clearly indicates that he saw the first plane sitting outside the classroom...but whether he was talking about then or 'before' he even got to the classroom is irrelevant...The fact is he DID NOT see the airplane hit the tower...no one saw it on TV until the next day...further more...he was TOLD an airplane had hit the tower and he may have been watching the tower...but no one saw the plane hit the tower...it was only the second plane that we saw for the rest of the day.

The point is ...Bush never saw ANY plane hit the tower(s)...not before he left that classroom. He didn't know a second plane had hit until Andy Card told him...so he did not see any plane at all, never, anywhere, no way, no how...until he left the classroom. So...why did he say that? Unless...maybe...he was watching it? Top Secret live feed? oh never mind...we'll just sweep that one under the rug too...

I mean...SkyEagle has does an awesome job of showing how the buildings were NOT wired for demolision...but that does NOT mean that there wasn't some kind of a conspiracy to create a path to Saddam and a 'War without End...amen'.

Edited November 7, 2013 by joc