[Split]Bush at the School - Split from: New Griffin book out on March 14, 2008.

[uk_dave]

I keep tellin' ya HHH, Bush was sending a secret message to you and a handful of others. He wanted you to know it was a false flag op so he behaved on 9-11 exactly as you would expect him to behave if it was a false flag op.

Of course, if he'd jumped to his feet and said "I gotta go, we're under attack. Fire up my F16, noodles" then you'd have no clue that he was in on it from the beginning, especially if he was already wearing his flghtsuit and goggles. That's why he wore a suit instead.

He wanted you and the handful of others, as the only members of the oppressed masses with the clarity of thought to see these obvious things to come forth six years later and educate the rest of us regarding this evil conspiracy. After all, where's the fun in being an evil conspirator if no one notices? Right?

[HappyHarryHampton]

Bush wasn't just told "American is under attack". That's absurd. Had he been told something like that, no doubt his first response would have been something like "Is it the Russians?" He was told "Another aircraft has hit the world trade center, America is under attack."

This tells him a number of things:
1) Two aircraft have flown into the WTC in New York
2) It was deliberate
In addition he can probably further conclude:
3) It is a terrorist attack, not the Russians or Chinese
4) He is probably safe where he is

-Gumboot

Nonsense.

Bush or the team has supposedly no idea of the scale of the attack, "are there other known hijacks?"... "what about more potential hijacks?" (practically every plane still in the sky)... "what are we doing about it?".

He/they supposedly had no idea who where or what and he didn't ask a single question.

I find the defence of this by posters here to be intriguing to say the least.

At least people haven't said he didn't want to scare the children yet I suppose, that was seriously argued for a long time by pro-Bushites.

[funk de fino]

First, permit me to thank you for your bravery and your service to America.

It was the UK;)

I disagree that Bush is stupid. He is no mental giant, but he tested higher than John Kerry on a standard IQ test administered by the military. Kerry, always the gentleman, accounted for scoring lower than Bush by suggesting that he might been drinking the night before.

Having a high IQ does not mean you cannot be stupid. I look at it from a point of view of a brit who grew up going to school with a lot of Americans due to there being an Americam Naval base near my home, that my mother worked in for 18 years. I work for an American Oil service company. i travel to New York for vacations as many times as I can because it is the greates city on earth and I love the New Yorkers. I go to watch the Yankees when I am there and I am the only person I know here in the UK who is in to baseball at all. Not everyone is as pro american as me but there has always been a respect due to the Second World war and even in a smaller sense the balkans conflicts.

Bush has spoiled that. There are many many more America haters in the UK nowadays and the respect and admiration has dwindled. This is also more true in a lot of the other European nations.

I agree with the Afghanistan conflict and everything involved in that.

I agree with getting rid of Saddam but I strongly disagree with the timing of the commencements of hostilities and the manner the UN was hand waved at. The speed at which the US rushed into Iraq and stuck their noses up at the UN and major European allies and fellow members of NATO was an act of extreme foolishness and stubborness that has led to a long, protracted mess in Iraq.

All Bush had to do was to play along with the UN and sweet talk the NATO allies and Europeans for a while longer and there would have been better planning and support for the conflict. There was no hurry. They had him locked down. He was a threat to no-one. This has backfired on him in a big way and he will go down as one of the most hated leaders in modern times across the world.

Is he incompetent? We know that Rumsfeld made some bad decisions and that Bush approved them. A review of the history of America's participation in World War II reveals incompetence on a massive scale. I'm not excusing Bush for bungling what, in my opinion, was a bold and visionary foreign policy initiative. I'm saddened that a golden opportunity to reverse decades of failures in the Middle East may have been squandered.

I am also sad when I see attitudes to America from a lot of people here due to Mr Bush and his failings. One of our greatest PM's in history has been tainted by Bush and his half cocked policies and this ultimately cost him his job. This is a shame also. It is a shame when I meet americans touring the world on my travels and they are wearing Canadian flags on their rucksacks.

[HappyHarryHampton]

I keep tellin' ya HHH, Bush was sending a secret message to you and a handful of others. He wanted you to know it was a false flag op so he behaved on 9-11 exactly as you would expect him to behave if it was a false flag op.

Of course, if he'd jumped to his feet and said "I gotta go, we're under attack. Fire up my F16, noodles" then you'd have no clue that he was in on it from the beginning, especially if he was already wearing his flghtsuit and goggles. That's why he wore a suit instead.

He wanted you and the handful of others, as the only members of the oppressed masses with the clarity of thought to see these obvious things to come forth six years later and educate the rest of us regarding this evil conspiracy. After all, where's the fun in being an evil conspirator if no one notices? Right?

Yes UK_dave, we know you think it's all perfectly normal.

Not many knew about this until Michael Moore got hold of the film and I'm pretty sure that before that the White House gave a different impression of what went on in the classroom but I'll have to check that.

[Tbone]

It was the UK;)

Same thing, right? :D

[uk_dave]

Yes UK_dave, we know you think it's all perfectly normal.

Not many knew about this until Michael Moore got hold of the film and I'm pretty sure that before that the White House gave a different impression of what went on in the classroom but I'll have to check that.

Yeah well, all I can say to that is that had 9-11 really been a false flag op, you'd have no idea about it. Everything the 'truth' movement finds suspicious about 9-11 is predicated upon their need for the perfection of a hollywood movie.


Plane wreckage at Shanksville should have been clearly identifiable to truthers
The flight path and damage at the pentagon should have been how truthers would have imagined it
The WTC towers should have collapsed the way truthers imagine a collapse should happen, or not happen at all.
Bush should have behaved the way truthers would have imagined he wouldAnd had this all been planned with thought of fooling those very same truthers then everything that happened on that day would have been exactly how truthers would have imagined it.

Of course the rest of the world would have then smelled a rat.

[HappyHarryHampton]

Of course the rest of the world would have then smelled a rat.

I think a large number of people have smelled a rat.

I don't care about the other stuff you listed... the single biggest reason for me smelling a rat is that classroom.

That classroom strongly suggests foreknowledge.

If you want to couple that with Bush and Rice lies about "no one could have imagined planes being used this way" AND the obstruction of the 9/11 inquiry by the White House the smell is of a BIG rat.

[uk_dave]

That classroom strongly suggests foreknowledge.

No it suggests that Bush was incapable of taking control of the situation and instead sat there doing nothing, as no doubt his staff and the USSS wanted him to, because in the real world Presidents really don't put on their flightsuits and single handedly save the world. They have others for that.

If Bush and the School was in danger why didn't the USSS rush in and drag him out? Do they need to be invited to jump on him if someone fires a gun?

So either the USSS were in on it or they were following their own procedures.

Why didn't his staff rush in and demand that he make decisions and ask questions? Are they unable to carry out their duties without the prez guiding their every move?

Or perhaps his staff was in direct contact with the necessary agencies and were preparing an accurate briefing for him rather than a 'headless chicken' briefing.

Or, of course, Bush sat there in front of TV cameras knowing that he was being recorded and trying desperately not to giggle as he contemplated the evil plan he had set in motion. But only you and a handful of others see it that way.


If you want to couple that with Bush and Rice lies about "no one could have imagined planes being used this way" AND the obstruction of the 9/11 inquiry by the White House the smell is of a BIG rat.

Politics and a large dose of 'covering their asses'

How else could she have responded?

Rice: Well yeah, I, like, saw that episode of the 'lone gunman' where they, like, tride to crash this mutha of a plane into the world trade towers, and I thought 'Girl, that might just be possible'

Reporter: So why didn't you do anything to stop it?

Rice: Ummmmm it was on TV, like, not real! Hello?

[Jonnyclueless]

Now you can't be serious... Bush is told 'America is under attack' and no more.. and you think it's OK to have no questions?

Did you even read what you're responding to? You think that if his staff had more info they wouldn't tell him unless he asked questions?? Seriously??


Weird... everyone I have spoke to who have seen that video think it's weird.

I've never met anyone who thought it was weird at all. And so far no one has been able to give a good reason as to why it was weird. Especially since most everyone had the same response during the attack.


How would Bush and team know? They supposedly didn't know about the first two planes.. they suddenly had a handle on the whole situation?
Come on!

Um, so the people who didn't know about the other planes were supposed to tell Bush about them? Do you not see how absurd that is? They had as much control as they possibly could. And no questions from Bush would change that. Stop with this nonsense.


I refer to my first point, why wouldn't he ask... jeeze... America was under attack!

Because he isn't stupid and knows that his staff is there to tell him everything. He knows that they aren't going to keep things from him because that would be against their job duties. He's the guy who every morning is given reports and info. He doesn't go asking for it because he knows he has people there who's job it is to keep him informed. America was under attack? And?

He's not the only one? OK.. so how did he know his services were not required immediately or in case the others got taken out?

Have you not been paying attention at ALL????? He knew this because he would have been told so by his staff who is hired to tell him. You seriously think he needs to go around asking "Hey, am I needed for a shoot down order?" And that his staff would sit there saying nothing and thinking "Gosh, I hope he asks if he needs to give a shootdown order because we're gonna keep quiet about it until he forces it out of us".

Do you see how absurd that is??

I've thought about this stuff plenty.. believe me!

Not according to your posts.

I find it incredible that people think it's OK for the POTUS to be told 'America is under attack' and for him not to ask any questions about it... he even dilli-dallied on the way out the classroom sometime later.

That's because you don't really think. He was moved out of the classroom once a route was secured.

AMERICA WAS UNDER ATTACK!

For goddsake.

You'd think the stock market had fallen be .0001% instead.

Wow, you're truly amazing. I think someone is smoking a little too much you know what here. That's the only possible explanation.

[HappyHarryHampton]

So either the USSS were in on it or they were following their own procedures.

I think most people would have to conclude that the USSS also knew what was happening.

How would they know they were safe when the number of planes yet to be hijacked and the targets are unknown.

The behaviour of the whole of the Bush team in that classroom - including the SS - suggests foreknowledge.

They knew they were safe, they knew what was happening.

[Jonnyclueless]

I think a large number of people have smelled a rat.

I don't care about the other stuff you listed... the single biggest reason for me smelling a rat is that classroom.

That classroom strongly suggests foreknowledge.

If you want to couple that with Bush and Rice lies about "no one could have imagined planes being used this way" AND the obstruction of the 9/11 inquiry by the White House the smell is of a BIG rat.

And that large number of people "the twoofers" Is much smaller than the falt earth society.

Of course you don't care about the stuff he listed. You don't care about anything but having your conspiracy so you can play pretend hero because of all the shortcomings in your life. So of course you won't listen to anything anyone says when doing so would mean having to accept your reality for what it is instead of this fantasy where you get to play the super hero who no one believes until it's too late and then everyone in the world who ever laughed at you will be begging for your forgiveness and your life will then have purpose.

Yeah, I sure smell a rat too, but it also had 1 too many burritos for dinner and left a big present.

[HappyHarryHampton]

Politics and a large dose of 'covering their asses'

How else could she have responded?

With the truth?

The truth being that hijack scenarios and planes as missles are training drill scenarios practicised by the military (you seen the Pentagon model pictures I presume) and are in no way outlandish.

You seem happy with Bush and Rice lying because it's 'politics' but you trust them?

I don't.

I don't see how anyone in that classroom could have known they were not the target of a potential hijacked plane.

Foreknowledge - as plain as day.

[Jonnyclueless]

I think most people would have to conclude that the USSS also knew what was happening.

How would they know they were safe when the number of planes yet to be hijacked and the targets are unknown.

The behaviour of the whole of the Bush team in that classroom - including the SS - suggests foreknowledge.

They knew they were safe, they knew what was happening.


You nailed it. They didn't know. So what would be the point in going to some place else which would have equal probability of being a target (equal being slim to none)? And again, you do realize that it takes time to secure a route do you not? So you are suggesting they just wisk him on his way with the possibility that terrorists could know his location and attack him on the way? As opposed to the school which has already been secured and they have control of.

Lithium...

[uk_dave]

I think most people would have to conclude that the USSS also knew what was happening.

How would they know they were safe when the number of planes yet to be hijacked and the targets are unknown.

The behaviour of the whole of the Bush team in that classroom - including the SS - suggests foreknowledge.

They knew they were safe, they knew what was happening.

C'mon Harry, EVERYBODY has to be in on it. The media, the law enforcement, the intelligence agencies, the military, the airlines, the judicial system, the structural engineering and architectural communities....the list is endless.

For no one to take any action at that school which you can approve of, everyone there, with the possible exception of the kids, must have been in on it.

The media are in on it because they 'hid' the footage and have failed to ask the questions you have asked. Hmmm suspicious

Law enforcement were in on it because they investigated the events of that day and they have found nothing to indicate an 'inside job'. Hmmmm suspicious

The airlines allowed their planes to be remotely piloted/spirited away/turned into missiles because they haven't questioned the official account of events. Hmmmm suspicious

The Judicial system won't even punish UL for firing Ryan. Hmmmm suspicious

More like paranoid. :aaa!

[HappyHarryHampton]

"the twoofers"

"twoofers" - you lose.

If you want to engage in adult dicussion at some point please let me know.

[Jonnyclueless]

With the truth?

The truth being that hijack scenarios and planes as missles are training drill scenarios practicised by the military (you seen the Pentagon model pictures I presume) and are in no way outlandish.

You seem happy with Bush and Rice lying because it's 'politics' but you trust them?

I don't.

I don't see how anyone in that classroom could have known they were not the target of a potential hijacked plane.

Foreknowledge - as plain as day.


There you go being dishonest again. Pretending that the government is one single entity with a single mind. And that everyone knows everything that everyone else does. First of all, there were NO military exercises that matched what happened on 9/11. NONE. There were several unrelated ones that you dishonest twoofers pretend was one big exercise and mislead people into thinking they trained for such an event. That's what we call a lie.

And just because some people in the world may have conceived of the possibility does not mean everyone had expected it. What amazes me is how dishonest people are while using catch terms like "truth". Pretty sad to exploit such a tragic event. You guys should be ashamed.

[HappyHarryHampton]

C'mon Harry, EVERYBODY has to be in on it. The media, the law enforcement, the intelligence agencies, the military, the airlines, the judicial system, the structural engineering and architectural communities....the list is endless.

For foreknowledge of a terrorist attack?

I don't think so.

The intelligence services would have to know and the White House and that's it.

I'm not going to let you bog this down with the later stuff.

The classroom.. that's all anyone needs to call foul!

[HappyHarryHampton]

There you go being dishonest again.
I have not been in the least bit dishonest.

Pretending that the government is one single entity with a single mind. And that everyone knows everything that everyone else does.
I not saying that. I am saying that everyone in that classroom knew they were not a target and the lack of even a single question from Bush points at foreknowledge.

First of all, there were NO military exercises that matched what happened on 9/11. NONE.
Oh but there are and you know it.
Planes crashing into the Pentagon?
You haven't seen the photos of the scale model of the Pentagon with a plane crashed in the middle?
And if Chris Carter can imagine EXACTLY the twin tower scenario of a TV program I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of the people in the military to imagine the same.
Are you for real?

There were several unrelated ones that you dishonest twoofers pretend was one big exercise and mislead people into thinking they trained for such an event. That's what we call a lie.
"Twoofers" again.. tut tut.

[Jonnyclueless]

"twoofers" - you lose.

If you want to engage in adult dicussion at some point please let me know.

I'm sorry, let me know if you start one. Not listening to anything anyone says and making pure conjecture as an argument isn't an adult conversation. it's conversation of one who is abusing a certain substance.

Please don't pretend to be interested in conversation. You want to play conspiracy. Hence you won't even acknowledge the literally 100s of reasonable explanations. Not surprising coming from someone who only read a single sentence of a PNAC paper, while making incorrect claims about it because he didn't even bother to read the next sentence of the paper which explains the previous one.

:crazy: :run: :bwall :wackychatter: :wackygoofy:

[HappyHarryHampton]

I'm sorry, let me know if you start one. Not listening to anything anyone says and making pure conjecture as an argument isn't an adult conversation. it's conversation of one who is abusing a certain substance.

The ad hominem continues.

I am listening to what you are saying.. I'm disagreeing with what you're saying.

You don't like what I'm saying, you can't dispute what I'm saying hence the ad hominem.

[funk de fino]

Same thing, right? :D

Strictly speaking at that location and time, then yes;)

Although while on guard duty I had one young pup US officer come up to me and start giving me a bit of uncalled for crap advice and feedback on what I was doing. He also spat his chewing tobacco spit stuff on the toe of my boot. He was told to shove it up his ass, then I found out he outranked me and was in fact related to the CO. My WO came and sorted him out though.

[Jonnyclueless]

I have not been in the least bit dishonest.

You have yet to be honest.


I not saying that. I am saying that everyone in that classroom knew they were not a target and the lack of even a single question from Bush points at foreknowledge.

Yes you are saying that. You're leaving no other possibility. And we have pointed out over and over and over and over why you couldn't be more wrong on this point. But you don't bother to read any of it. What you are saying is a very badly informed opinion that has no merit what so ever.


Oh but there are and you know it.
Planes crashing into the Pentagon?
You haven't seen the photos of the scale model of the Pentagon with a plane crashed in the middle?
And if Chris Carter can imagine EXACTLY the twin tower scenario of a TV program I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of the people in the military to imagine the same.
Are you for real?

Now go read my post again. Yes I am for real.


"Twoofers" again.. tut tut.

Yup. And nonsense arguments again from a twoofer. Only some are abusing a substance more than others tonight.

[funk de fino]

For foreknowledge of a terrorist attack?

I don't think so.

The intelligence services would have to know and the White House and that's it.

I'm not going to let you bog this down with the later stuff.

The classroom.. that's all anyone needs to call foul!

What would your reaction be if someone came into a room and told you that all your children has just died?

[Jonnyclueless]

The ad hominem continues.

I am listening to what you are saying.. I'm disagreeing with what you're saying.

You don't like what I'm saying, you can't dispute what I'm saying hence the ad hominem.

No you're not disagreeing, you're dismissing. You're making a claim of exactly why and how things happened. We're pointing out the 100s of other possibilities. Just them being possible flushes your claims down the toilet.

You're right, I can't dispute your opinion. But you can't acknowledge that it's just an opinion. A very bad one that as has been pointed out in this thread is completely baseless. You're saying there is no other reason for him to act this way. Yet we have given reason after reason. Hence you're not listening.

BTW, go learn what Ad Hominem means now.

[HappyHarryHampton]

Yes you are saying that. You're leaving no other possibility. And we have pointed out over and over and over and over why you couldn't be more wrong on this point. But you don't bother to read any of it. What you are saying is a very badly informed opinion that has no merit what so ever.

You haven't told me how they could possibly know they were in no danger when they had no idea how many hijackers were still in the sky and what the targets were and why the POTUS when told America is under attack has no questions.. not even the most obvious ones.

[Pushkin]

[QUOTE=HappyHarryHampton;

The classroom.. that's all anyone needs to call foul![/QUOTE]

HHH do you really believe this? AFAIK millions of people have (since 9/11) seen the events as they played out in the class room. Not many of them have "called foul". Why not?

[Dave Rogers]

The first time I saw that footage was in Michael Moore's film.

I didn't see the mainstream media telling us about it before. Were we supposed to see it?

Ah, the classic truther moment of vereversification. You claim Bush must have had foreknowledge, because only that explains his actions in the classroom. It's pointed out to you that foreknowledge doesn't explain his actions in the classroom, so you claim that reporting of Bush's actions in the classroom has somehow been suppressed, demonstrating foreknowledge.

Mind you, it was a very effective peice of censorship. If the events hadn't been covered in the most widely seen documentary film of all time, hardly anybody would have known about them.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

You haven't told me how they could possibly know they were in no danger when they had no idea how many hijackers were still in the sky and what the targets were and why the POTUS when told America is under attack has no questions.. not even the most obvious ones.

Nobody's suggesting they knew he was in no danger, just that he was in less danger being kept for a few minutes in a location that had been thoroughly inspected in advance and was well guarded at the time than being hustled off to somewhere else. As for having no questions, that would be because he's an idiot.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

"twoofers" - you lose.

If you want to engage in adult dicussion at some point please let me know.

You have been nothing but condescending, ridiculing, arrogant, ignorant, and you are asking someone else to engage in adult conversation?

You have displayed nothing only antagonizing, baseless conjecture. I am more than happy to say to you Mr. HHH...welcome to ignore.

You can get what you consider "adult" discussion from others with the patience and tolerance to address your "points".

TAM:)

[chillzero]

The book discussion has been split out for a further attempt to review and discuss:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103212

ETA: And please let's calm the reponses down a little and restore some civility.

[DavidJames]

Asking a third time.

Please Answer my questions:

What's your point?
The fact that Bush and the SS didn't act the way you thought they should means what?

[nicepants]

You haven't told me how they could possibly know they were in no danger when they had no idea how many hijackers were still in the sky and what the targets were and why the POTUS when told America is under attack has no questions.. not even the most obvious ones.

When the WTC was bombed in '93 was the president moved because they were afraid the White House would be a target too?

More likely, after the planes hit the WTC, unless someone knew of the existence of other hijacked aircraft, they would probably assume that the WTC was the extent of the attack. I certainly did....until I heard about what happened at the Pentagon.

[CurtC]

I skipped ahead in this thread, since the first couple of pages were kind of redundant, so sorry if this has already been covered.

It's plainly obvious by now that the school was safe for Bush to be in, right? So there's no question about why he stayed there for a few minutes while his SS people scrambled to make plans, right?

Now any competent individual would have immediately excused himself and taken some kind of charge. The fact that Bush didn't do this, but sat in the class still reading to the kids, is merely evidence that he's an incompetent boob. We'll just add this tidbit to the large stack of evidence we already have.

Now, why do Troothers seem to view this as evidence for their side? It's just one more instance of them taking anything that looks strange and thinking it must be evidence of a conspiracy. But this strange event is the opposite - it's evidence against Bush knowing anything ahead of time. How could his reaction that morning be spun into an argument that he had foreknowledge? I don't think it can be done.

[nicepants]

Now, why do Troothers seem to view this as evidence for their side? It's just one more instance of them taking anything that looks strange and thinking it must be evidence of a conspiracy. But this strange event is the opposite - it's evidence against Bush knowing anything ahead of time. How could his reaction that morning be spun into an argument that he had foreknowledge? I don't think it can be done.

Agreed. If Bush had immediately gotten up, left the room with some SS personnel and gotten away from all of the cameras, truthers would be clamoring that he was in some control room ensuring the attacks would happen as planned, deliberately avoiding the video cameras, media, students, etc.

Bush stays: Evidence of a conspiracy
Bush leaves: Evidence of a conspiracy

...but that's how the CTs always work.

[Billdave2]

Here is the thing, many people have this notion that in a situation like this the "normal" reaction would be to jump up and take charge like the hero in a movie. In reality most people(even highly competant people) when faced with a situation so out of the ordinary and happening so quick, and so unexpected will often react in "weird" ways. Just last week a former co-worker of mine lost his father, mother and aunt in a car wreck (they were hit by a drunk driver). When the police called him to tell him that there had been an accident and he needed to come to the hospital right away, he was at his doctor's office for an appointment. I think most of us would have jumped up and ran to the hospital, probably without even notifing the nurse. My ex-coworker didn't. He stayed for the appointment and then went home and called his brother to find out what happened. I think that is "weird", but I am sure he doesn't think so (and many of you might agree with him).

The movie's really reinforce this idea of how people should react. In a movie, the star will usually react without hesitation and leap into action. The movie would be boring otherwise. I remember reading one of William Goldman's books about hollywood and the art of screenwriteing, where he tells a story about interviewing a retired firefighter. He asked about heoric deeds and fireman who were extraordinary. The fireman tells him a story about the most amazing thing he ever experianced fighting fires. He says that as he and his partner were leaving a burning building that was on the verge of collapse, his partner stopped, said "Do you hear that?", he replies"I don't hear anything, we need to get out!". His partner then turns and bursts through a closed, burning door where there is a crying baby in a crib. He picks the baby up and they all three make it out at the last instant. Goldman says this is a terrific true story, a once in a lifetime thing for a firefighter, but in a movie about a firefighter, it is just one scene. That is how much hollywood exagerates, and we expect real people to live up to these notions.

[Jonnyclueless]

You haven't told me how they could possibly know they were in no danger when they had no idea how many hijackers were still in the sky and what the targets were and why the POTUS when told America is under attack has no questions.. not even the most obvious ones.

Yes I absolutely have told you. Many many times. But you don't listen.

All things being even, they were in the safest location possible at the time. They had already secured the area, so moving him to another place not yet secured would make absolutely no sense. The best course of action possible is to get him in Air force One. But to do that they need to secure a route. So until that route is secure, the area that they have already secured is going to be more secure than an area they haven't secured.

WHAT part of this doesn't make sense to you? Why must it be repeated over and over again while you claim it hasn't been?

And again, you have been told over and over as to WHY he didn't ask questions. Yet you sit here and pretend the issue has not been addressed.

Stop jerking us around and being a troll. Go read the thread and stop pretending the issues haven't been addressed. This thread should only be about 3 pages long because the rest is the same information being repeated over and over and you claiming it hasn't been addressed.

Hence the obvious deduction that this behavior is induced by an outside substance. It has all the tell tale signs.

[westprog]

I skipped ahead in this thread, since the first couple of pages were kind of redundant, so sorry if this has already been covered.

It's plainly obvious by now that the school was safe for Bush to be in, right? So there's no question about why he stayed there for a few minutes while his SS people scrambled to make plans, right?

Now any competent individual would have immediately excused himself and taken some kind of charge. The fact that Bush didn't do this, but sat in the class still reading to the kids, is merely evidence that he's an incompetent boob. We'll just add this tidbit to the large stack of evidence we already have.

Now, why do Troothers seem to view this as evidence for their side? It's just one more instance of them taking anything that looks strange and thinking it must be evidence of a conspiracy. But this strange event is the opposite - it's evidence against Bush knowing anything ahead of time. How could his reaction that morning be spun into an argument that he had foreknowledge? I don't think it can be done.

There are two aspects to this. There's whether or not what Bush did was sensible or wise. There's then the question of whether his actions indicated foreknowledge. It's fairly obvious that his actions don't indicate foreknowledge. If he'd really planned the whole thing, it would have been silly to arrange to be in public, being filmed when it happened.

So, given that it isn't evidence of anything in particular, were his actions that strange? Personally, if he spent five minutes thinking about what he should do, that's not such a bad thing. He would have very quickly realised that there was nothing much he could do, immediately.

The secret service would have had to consider all the possibilities. Was there a hijacked aircraft aimed at the school? Was there an arab assassin concealed among the staff? Were there machine gunners waiting outside the school? Was there an anti-aircraft missile waiting for AF1?

The critical points were -


There was nothing that Bush could immediately do.
There was no other close location where he could control the situation.
The situation was changing all the time.
The information available was very limited.The most important point is that it would have made absolutely no difference to anything if Bush had leapt up and ran out of the room. So if it was a "mistake", it had no consequences whatsoever.

[johnny karate]

I'm loving this particular CTer strategy.

CTer: Excuse me, but I was wondering if someone could offer an explanation for Scenario A?

Lots and lots of people: Well, X, Y, or Z are all plausible.

CTer: WRONG! It's Q!

[Slayhamlet]

I switched off when I realised that you weren't interested in the truth.

The Dachau 'gas chamber' film was shown at Nuremberg, other stuff was entered as pre-trial evidence as 'proof' of gas chambers. Stories of gas chambers at Dachau were milked for many years afterwards (and still are in some quarters).

Why did you post this crap here and not in the thread I directed you to? Wait, I know. Because it was debunked there and you didn't want anyone to see it. Stop lying.

I'm not discussing that any more... been down that road... you get banned for having a different interpretation of history.

Wither free speech?

Sorry.

No, you won't get banned for denying the Holocaust.You'd know this if you had read the friggin' Membership Agreement. Many of your ilk spew that denial crap here. Looks to me like you just don't like it when your sad denialism is debunked. Are you too cowardly to actually respond to the answers given to you in that thread? Or are you going to continue being intellectually dishonest by going off on a tangents and ignoring everything else?

[FactCheck]

David Ray Griffin is very smart. He knows the "Deer in the headlights" moment was going to be used as evidence he didn't know anything. So what does he do? He spins it by bringing it up first to defuse it. The fact is the "Deer in the headlights" moment is evidence he didn't know a thing.

If this was planed why wouldn't they make him look the hero? Why didn't they give the media a shot of him walking the children away from the school? Frontpage: "Bush heroicly escorts children away from school with no thought as to his own safely!!" Why didn't they plan his being told and how he would react? Why didn't they tell him to get on the phone and act presidential, you know, walk around telling people what to do? Even if he couldn't leave the building they could have set him up for a photo op. "Deer in the headlights"... Some photo op... The idea is just another absurdity the conspiracy industry is peddling.

[Reheat]

I couldn't take more than 3 pages of this garbage. Say what you want about Bush and his reaction, but there is one thing you need to remember.

Bush was trained by the USAF and he was a Air Defense Pilot for a bit. He has placed his finger in a glass of water and has seen there was no hole left. He knew as well as anyone that what he did during those early minutes would make no difference at all in the outcome. The President was irrelevant during the attack. The only possible thing that might have been done better was that "shoot down" authorization could have been issued sooner. It should have been issued prior to the Pentagon attack, not that it would have made a difference, but it should have happened. That's it.

He was anxious to make a Statement and that's one of the reasons they landed at Barksdale. That's what a President does. He arrives on the scene in time to watch the peons place a chalk mark around the dead body and arrange for the body to be transported to the morgue while he consoles the family of the deceased.

If you don't know, even after Air Force One took off they circled above Sarasota for a long time prior to going to Barksdale. They just couldn't decide where to go. They were as safe as they could be following AF 1's emergency protocol,

As has been said before, THIS IS A STUPID THREAD.

Sizzler has troofer mentality, pure and simple. Everyone needs to realize that now.....

[HappyHarryHampton]

The Secret service is supposed to "act on the side of caution."

It's supposed to be standard operating procedure during a threat situation for the Secret Service to move the president and key members of his cabinet to safety.

In the case of the president that day, his location was well publicized and the Secret Service behaved very suspiciously in not insisting that he leave immediately.

MM

Yep.

They supposedly had no idea how many planes were already hijacked, how many were waiting to be hijacked and what their targets were.

But they chose to do nothing.

Andrew Card whispers in Bush's ear ' a plane hit the second tower, America is under attack' which begs the following questions...

A) Why didn't Card say 'Mr President we need to talk outside' instead of leaving Bush in a quandary wondering just exactly what the hell that meant 'I was wondering what it meant for America to be under attack' - his own words.

B) Why didn't Bush ask for more information.

C) Why didn't Bush excuse himself.

D) Why didn't the SS get them out of there as there was no way they could have known what the potential targets were.

Forget the towers, the Pentagon missle planes all that.. it's not necessary... THIS is the 9/11 incident that gets people saying ...WTF!

[Brainache]

Yep.

They supposedly had no idea how many planes were already hijacked, how many were waiting to be hijacked and what their targets were.

But they chose to do nothing.

Andrew Card whispers in Bush's ear ' a plane hit the second tower, America is under attack' which begs the following questions...

A) Why didn't Card say 'Mr President we need to talk outside' instead of leaving Bush in a quandary wondering just exactly what the hell that meant 'I was wondering what it meant for America to be under attack' - his own words.

B) Why didn't Bush ask for more information.

C) Why didn't Bush excuse himself.

D) Why didn't the SS get them out of there as there was no way they could have known what the potential targets were.

Forget the towers, the Pentagon missle planes all that.. it's not necessary... THIS is the 9/11 incident that gets people saying ...WTF!

Is this what is in DRG's book HHH? I believe there is another thread where this little argument has been addressed about a billion times.

[HappyHarryHampton]

Th OP mentions not evacuating Bush.

I'm on topic.

And it hasn't been addressed a billion times.

There is no rational explantion why Bush wasn't evacuated when the SS couldn't possibly know what the targets were.

Unless.. they knew they weren't a target.

[Dave Rogers]

There is no rational explantion why Bush wasn't evacuated when the SS couldn't possibly know what the targets were.

Unless.. they knew they weren't a target.

[alternate universe]
There is no rational explanation why Bush was evacuated from the classroom so quickly when the SS couldn't possibly know that there wasn't an assassin waiting outside with a sniper scope.

Unless... they knew assassinating Bush wasn't part of the plan.
[/alternate universe]

Dave

[funk de fino]

Forget the towers, the Pentagon missle planes all that.. it's not necessary... THIS is the 9/11 incident that gets people saying ...WTF!

No, it is not.

Shoogly peg comes to mind, if this is all you have. Stop the attempted continuation of the derail

[HappyHarryHampton]

[alternate universe]
There is no rational explanation why Bush was evacuated from the classroom so quickly when the SS couldn't possibly know that there wasn't an assassin waiting outside with a sniper scope.

Unless... they knew assassinating Bush wasn't part of the plan.
[/alternate universe]

Dave

You're saying that the SS are unable to move a president in a way that means he won't get shot?

really?

You really do live in an alternative universe.

Thanks for the non-answer, is that the best you got?

Just exactly how did the SS know they were not a target without the aid of clairvoyance?

[HappyHarryHampton]

No, it is not.

Shoogly peg comes to mind, if this is all you have. Stop the attempted continuation of the derail

Thanks for yet another non-answer.

It's not all I got.. but it's all I need.

Come on.. tell me.. how did the SS know Bush was not the target of a hijacked plane?

[8den]

Thanks for yet another non-answer.

It's not all I got.. but it's all I need.

Come on.. tell me.. how did the SS know Bush was not the target of a hijacked plane?

How did the secret service know there was another hijacked plane?

A terrorist attack happens several thousand miles away from the President, and the secret service are supposed to barrel him out of the room, in front of children and TV cameras when there was evidence that their was a specific threat towards the President?

[Dave Rogers]

You're saying that the SS are unable to move a president in a way that means he won't get shot?

No, I'm saying that if Bush had been evacuated from the classroom within seconds of hearing the news, you'd find a way to spin that into a conspiracy theory too.

Dave

[HappyHarryHampton]

No, I'm saying that if Bush had been evacuated from the classroom within seconds of hearing the news, you'd find a way to spin that into a conspiracy theory too.

Dave

That is another non-answer and a strawman to boot.

[8den]

That is another non-answer and a strawman to boot.

Its a simple point Harry, why would the Secret Service know that there was a direct credible threat to the President's immediate safety, from a terrorist attack several thousand miles away.

Or do you think it suspicious Roosevelt wasn't ushered to a bunker when they heard Pearl Harbour was hit?

[HappyHarryHampton]

How did the secret service know there was another hijacked plane?

A terrorist attack happens several thousand miles away from the President, and the secret service are supposed to barrel him out of the room, in front of children and TV cameras when there was evidence that their was a specific threat towards the President?

Another strawman argument.

It's always pictured as some kind of undignified exit hat would induce mass panic by the people making this 'argument'.

Utter bull.

The fact is that planes (plural) were being hijacked, the number of potential planes and targets was a complete unknown and Bush was in a publically announced location.

The SS had no way of knowing Bush was not a target.

Or did they?

The gun is smoking.

[8den]

The fact is that planes (plural) were being hijacked, the number of potential planes and targets was a complete unknown


Did they know any more planes had been hijacked at that point?


and Bush was in a publically announced location.

No he was a school in folder, the address and name of that school was not widespread knowledge before he arrived.


The SS had no way of knowing Bush was not a target.

Or did they?


The same rational, they had no way of knowing he was a target. Can you provide evidence that there was a credible threat to the president from a terrorist incident thousands of miles away?



The gun is smoking.


Actually if over six years later this is the best you've got, the gun is not even smoking it is lying rusty on a shelf.

[HappyHarryHampton]

Its a simple point Harry, why would the Secret Service know that there was a direct credible threat to the President's immediate safety, from a terrorist attack several thousand miles away.

Or do you think it suspicious Roosevelt wasn't ushered to a bunker when they heard Pearl Harbour was hit?

Another strawman.

The SS had no idea how many planes were going to be hijacked, or where they took off from, or what there targets were.

Planes travel fast.

[DGM]

Another strawman.

The SS had no idea how many planes were going to be hijacked, or where they took off from, or what there targets were.

Planes travel fast.
The SS would know if there was planes heading for that area. So you think they should have moved him before they could access the situation? Shows you know nothing about protecting someone in an unknown situation.

[8den]

Another strawman.


You keep using that word I do not think you understand what it means.


The SS had no idea how many planes were going to be hijacked, or where they took off from, or what there targets were.

Precisely, they didn't know if there even were any other planes that had been hijacked. The attack on the WTC was incredible, and unprecedented, what basis do you have that they should have assumed that there were other planes that had been hijacked which posed an immediate threat to the President?



Planes travel fast.

Yes they do, however it's at least a four hour journey from new york to Florida on a commercial airline.

[Dave Rogers]

That is another non-answer and a strawman to boot.

No it's not, it's an ad hominem. Get your fallacies straight.

Dave

[chillzero]

To clarify, the last 17 posts have been merged here from the original thread.

[technoextreme]

Sure.



how many people in america continued working when they heard about this?

Stupid question. The answer is plenty.

[westprog]

Stupid question. The answer is plenty.

They were told to keep working in the second WTC tower when the first one was hit, IIRC.

[funk de fino]

Thanks for yet another non-answer.

It's not all I got.. but it's all I need.

Come on.. tell me.. how did the SS know Bush was not the target of a hijacked plane?

Its a secret

[8den]

Stupid question. The answer is plenty.

Yup I can remember being in Ireland on Sept 11th, having a three way IM chat with a friend in the states and a friend in London. Myself and my friend in London were completely freaked out at the enormity of the events unfolding, while my friend in the states was much more calmer and continued to work. The difference? Us two Europeans had TV's in our offices, while my American friend did not.

[HappyHarryHampton]

The same rational, they had no way of knowing he was a target. Can you provide evidence that there was a credible threat to the president from a terrorist incident thousands of miles away?

Absolutely yes!

Two planes were known to be hijacked.. there were reports of possible others... these were is US airspace... the SS HAD NO IDEA of the scale of the attack or where any attack was to come from.

Every single aircraft in American airspace at that time was a threat, THAT'S WHY THEY GROUNDED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! Even those over Florida.

Got it yet?

Bush was in a known place at a known time.

You have to ask why the SS knew they were safe.

The gun is smoking.

You don't need towers or disappearing planes.. everything people need to suspect the Government in a cover up over 9/11 is right here.

[DavidJames]

Asking a fourth time.

Please Answer my questions:

What's your point?
The fact that Bush and the SS didn't act the way you thought they should means what?

[HappyHarryHampton]

Asking a fourth time.

Please Answer my questions:

What's your point?
The fact that Bush and the SS didn't act the way you thought they should means what?

No. the President and the SS didn''t act like they were potential targets.

Why?

How could they possibly know they were not?

Also Card left Bush in a bit of a quandry with his aledged sparse '..America is under attack' whisper... he didn't even wait for a response... just whispered and immediately truned away..

Also Bush didn't ask for more information... for 8 minutes... and then he took his time leaving the room...

Also the Bush team told him off camera 'don't say anything yet' when he couldn't have known what it was he wasn't to say anything about...

Also Bush wasn't in any great rush to leave the classroom when the kids put the books away...

This is all you need to suggest foreknowledge.. it's grounds for an investigation... an unobstructed independant one.

[SDC]

H3, I wish you'd provided evidence instead of mere suspicions. But in the meantime, you refer to "an unobstructed independent one" [i.e., investigation].

Please provide an agenda, personnel, oversight, etc. I think you've indicated that you are from the UK. Do you trust the Yanks to handle it? Do you want it to be run, by, oh I don't know, Ken Livingston and Geo Galloway? (Not that I think they would get along, but they are the most anti-American UK personalities I could think of on short notice.)

Who pays for it? Not my (US) taxes, if I have anything to say about it.

Please, pretty please, grovelingly please, organize your own investigation. Let us know how it goes. All you are doing now is saying "I think they behaved funny and in suspicious ways." That doesn't help anyone.

[uk_dave]

You have to ask why the SS knew they were safe.

The gun is smoking.

You don't need towers or disappearing planes.. everything people need to suspect the Government in a cover up over 9/11 is right here.

No, you have to ask why, given that the USSS knew they were safe because they were in on it, they didn't run around like headless chickens and immediately move the POTUS out of the school, giggling all the while they're doing it, safe in the knowledge that there was no danger but that they were putting on a damned good show for the voters and there wouldn't be any tiresome 'truthers' in six years time obsessing over it.

Unless, of course, they wanted you to be suspicious, eh? :D

[WildCat]

Another strawman argument.
It occurs to me that the next CT who properly uses "strawman argument" in a sentence will be the first.

[GStan]

Absolutely yes!

Two planes were known to be hijacked.. there were reports of possible others... these were is US airspace... the SS HAD NO IDEA of the scale of the attack or where any attack was to come from.

Every single aircraft in American airspace at that time was a threat, THAT'S WHY THEY GROUNDED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! Even those over Florida.

Got it yet?

Bush was in a known place at a known time.

You have to ask why the SS knew they were safe.

They did not know they were 'safe'. You have no evidence to support that they knew, or even thought they were 'safe'. For all you or I know, they may have felt unsafe, however, Bush remaining at the school for the additional time is only evidence that while they planned a course of action, they deemed that the school was no less safe than any other location they could immediately proceed to.

The gun is smoking.

You don't need towers or disappearing planes.. everything people need to suspect the Government in a cover up over 9/11 is right here.

*sigh*...(followed by LOL)

[8den]

Absolutely yes!

Two planes were known to be hijacked.. there were reports of possible others... these were is US airspace... the SS HAD NO IDEA of the scale of the attack or where any attack was to come from.

So their immediate action should be....to run? where?


Every single aircraft in American airspace at that time was a threat, THAT'S WHY THEY GROUNDED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! Even those over Florida.

Got it yet?


And all this occured in the eight minutes Bush was in the classroom? No, it took considerably more time. You're trying to make out that the instant the second plane hit, all aircraft were immediately grounded when that simply isn't the case.

Again what evidence do you have that the secret service believed there was a credible and immediate threat to the Presidents life that necessitated immediate action?


Bush was in a known place at a known time.


Patiently. Know by whom? And how much advance warning did they give?


You have to ask why the SS knew they were safe.

The gun is smoking.


You don't need towers or disappearing planes.. everything people need to suspect the Government in a cover up over 9/11 is right here.

Happy, I think your middle name ought not to be "harry" but rather Happy"incredibly tenuous"Hampton

[DavidJames]

This is all you need to suggest foreknowledge.. it's grounds for an investigation... an unobstructed independant one.I believe this is your point. You believe the SS and or Bush new in advance of the attacks.

So instead of making the president look heroic they make him look like an idiot.

I think you should be included as a suspect since you know all this and have failed to report it to the proper authorities. I suggest you turn yourself in immediately to save the embarrassment of having your parents see you taken away in handcuffs.

[nicepants]

No. the President and the SS didn''t act like they were potential targets.

And if they HAD thought that they were potential targets, how would they have acted?

[GStan]

No. the President and the SS didn''t act like they were potential targets.

Why?

How could they possibly know they were not?

Also Card left Bush in a bit of a quandry with his aledged sparse '..America is under attack' whisper... he didn't even wait for a response... just whispered and immediately truned away..

Also Bush didn't ask for more information... for 8 minutes... and then he took his time leaving the room...

Also the Bush team told him off camera 'don't say anything yet' when he couldn't have known what it was he wasn't to say anything about...

Also Bush wasn't in any great rush to leave the classroom when the kids put the books away...

This is all you need to suggest foreknowledge.. it's grounds for an investigation... an unobstructed independant one.

So far you've provided no reason to be suspicious, other than your lengthy fallacious arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. You have no valid reason to be suspicious of the behavior because you are completely ignorant of any expertise on the matter at hand. You have no expertise on which you can formulate a valid opinion as to the expected response of the Secret Service or the President, therefore your opinion in this matter is irrelevant. Go find some retired Secret Service officers and present your case to them. Their opinions on this topic could actually matter.

[HappyHarryHampton]

I'm obviously not talking to skeptics here.

I think that behaviour is suspcious and I know I am certainly not alone.

You think the behaviour is not unusual.

Well that's your call... you can't prove it's normal for the President to stay stationary when he is in a known location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at any time from anywhere.

I have my skeptic hat on and I say it's bull.

It certainly smells... were we supposed to see that film in the classroom?

How did Michael Moore get hold of it?

I'm sure the White House painted it differently before Michael Moore showed us what really happened.

[HappyHarryHampton]

So far you've provided no reason to be suspicious, other than your lengthy fallacious arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.

My argument is grounded in total logic.

It is not acceptable to have us believe that when the President is at a known and vulnerable location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at anytime from anywhere that it's OK to keep him there.

You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.

[Stellafane]

Any CTer who looks at Bush's behavior in the classroom as indication of anything at all is (let's be honest here) a flat-out idiot. How the hell are you supposed to act in the moments after you're been informed of a devastating and unprecedented event? Had Bush looked at his watch, smiled, and drawled "Right on time -- dang, those guys are good!" then maybe they'd have a point. Anything short of that is utter conjecture, and the fact that CTers keep bringing this up only proves what a load of nothing this whole 9/11 conspiracy thing is.

[nicepants]

My argument is grounded in total logic.

It is not acceptable to have us believe that when the President is at a known and vulnerable location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at anytime from anywhere that it's OK to keep him there.

You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.

If the SS had thought that the president was a potential target, what should their reaction have been?

[WildCat]

It certainly smells... were we supposed to see that film in the classroom?

How did Michael Moore get hold of it?

I'm sure the White House painted it differently before Michael Moore showed us what really happened.
You do know it was shown on every TV news broadcast that day, don't you? Of course you don't, because you really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

[GStan]

My argument is grounded in total logic.

I'm quite certain that in your mind, you have complete faith in the thought processes that have lead you to your conclusions. However, in a sound logical argument, there is no room for obviously fallacious appeals such as this one right here:

It is not acceptable to have us believe that when the President is at a known and vulnerable location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at anytime from anywhere that it's OK to keep him there.

This describes the entirety of your argument perfectly:

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or false until proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead."

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.

And I wouldn't try. I can freely admit that I have no relevant expertise on which to base an opinion in this area. My opinion of it being a good idea or not doesn't matter anymore than yours does. You have presented NOTHING sufficient to make anyone want to question the decision to remain at the school. Your fallacious appeals do not count. Try again.

[uk_dave]

Well that's your call... you can't prove it's normal for the President to stay stationary when he is in a known location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at any time from anywhere.



Can you prove that their actions were against SOP?

See, the fun part is that we don't have to convince you. Whether you believe it was or wasn't an inside job is insignificant. If we convince you that it wasn't, what in the world is going to change? And likewise if we fail to convince you.

But you HAVE to convince us and everyone else who doesn't share your belief. If you don't convince us, nothing changes, the world continues to turn. But if you do convince us (and everyone else), the world will change.

So, do try to argue from more than your own personal incredulity. It's not shared by most people and as such it's not a good way to try to change their minds.

You do know it was shown on every TV news broadcast that day, don't you? Of course you don't, because you really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

No. No. No one cared what the POTUS was doing at the time of the attacks. Oh heavens no. No one in the media said "Have we got any footage of Bush when he was first told of the attacks?". Why would they? That's not newsworthy in the least. Oh no.

[Belz...]

Right, because nothing went wrong that day. everything followed according to rules and proper conduct. no one in america made a wrong decision in protecting america, right?

the commander in chief (that means boss/leader/etc) decided not to take charge, but instead ask school children questions.

Hindsight. Gotta love it.

if you can't see the error in his judgement, you need to look the this word up,

denial

And I suggest you look this word up:

ARMCHAIR.

[johnny karate]

Crimeny, I think it's time to nuke this thread from orbit.

Our CTer friend here is clearly from the same school of thought as Miragememories, LastChild, lisabob2, et al. He just keeps repeating the same assertion over and over again, completely ignoring anything anyone offers to the contrary. And then claims we are the ones not interested in "the truth".

Happy Harry, is there any argument or evidence that would change your mind on this issue? If so, please describe what it would be.

[Belz...]

Thanks for yet another non-answer.

Happy, just because the answer doesn't agree with you doesn't mean it's not an answer.

How could they possibly know they were not?

They couldn't. How does that help you ?

[Jonnyclueless]

This has got to be the most absolutely absurd discussion I have EVER seen in my entire life. One would think it would be truly funny, but it's just too far out there to even laugh at. I can just thank God that these guys are dwarfed by the flat earth society. Otherwise our species would be in great danger.

This thread needs to be closed down because these guys are simply trolling. 9 pages of the same answers over and over egged on by some trolls who keep pretending no one has answered. They are clearly just trying to provoke people and aren't interested in a discussion at all.

[johnny karate]

This has got to be the most absolutely absurd discussion I have EVER seen in my entire life. One would think it would be truly funny, but it's just too far out there to even laugh at. I can just thank God that these guys are dwarfed by the flat earth society. Otherwise our species would be in great danger.

The thing that boggles my mind is how these people carry on like they're the keen-eyed and daring Woodward and Bernsteins of the new millenium.

As if crap like this hasn't been brought up a gazillion times before by a gazillion different people, and the resounding and overwhelming response from the world as been, "Meh."

[Jonnyclueless]

It's so far fetched that I don't think it can even be considered conjecture or speculation. Those require at least some kind of reasonability to them. These are just flat out unreasonable assertions not based on anything realistic to then make very weak and poorly thought out speculation.

There could be no better example of starting with a pre-determined conclusion and trying to fit the facts to fit that conclusion. They already determined they need an inside job, so the goal is to see how they can convince themselves and everyone else of this fantasy by twisting this event into being part of it. And it has blinded them to how absurd these assertions are. The truth of the matter is that this isn't widely discussed for the same reasons aliens taking down the WTC is. The average person is too intelligent to even consider it. I wish these guys could get on a TV show to discuss this so that they could see everyone laughing. I think it would be a good reality check. Instead of pretending that this si some issue hidden from the public, etc.

[fezzic]

My argument is grounded in total logic.

It is not acceptable to have us believe that when the President is at a known and vulnerable location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at anytime from anywhere that it's OK to keep him there.

You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.

Because the Secret Service agent in charge (SSAIC) made a decision that's what he or she is supposed to do. He or she looked at what they knew, what might be happening, and what choices were available. That the SSAIC chose to do something different from your total logic is not their concern. They were dealing with a situation with potentially lethal consequences. If they made the wrong decision, if there had been in fact a hijacked airliner headed for their location, then they would deal with it as best they could.

That is inherent in decision making. The decision maker makes a choice between alternatives (and sometimes there are no good alternatives only less bad alternatives).

So "immediately move the President from a location that was reasonably safe given what was known in a hasty and frantic drive to 'nowhere'" or "keep the President in a location that was reasonably safe for the time being"? In either case, there would be a need to arrange for the President's movements (like to AF 1) which involve more than jumping into a limo and racing out to the airfield where AF1 was.

For instance, the cops assigned to security were probably deployed around and in the school. Other cops assigned to provide security and escort to the Presidential motorcade were probably posted at appropriate spots to help control access. They need to be warned of the upcoming movement or else the Secret Service is going to be racing away with their "escort" frantically trying to get together and catch up.

Your total logic assumes that the only viable and practical course of action was to immediately bundle the President into his limo and go racing off the school grounds. That was not the case.

[aggle-rithm]

I'm obviously not talking to skeptics here.

I think that behaviour is suspcious



You know what behavior I would find suspicious? If Bush had immediately leapt to his feet, thrust his finger into the air, and shouted, "A crisis! Don't worry children, I'LL save you!" Meanwhile, his aids would wring their hands and gibber, "What do we do, Mr. President? We need guidance!" Bush would then stride purposefully from the room, beckoning them to follow. "Come with me men, there's work to do!"

THAT would be suspicious.

and I know I am certainly not alone.

If you believed it was all right to have sex with toddlers, then you would certainly not be alone. Many people believe many weird things. The internet helps them find each other.


You think the behaviour is not unusual.

Well that's your call... you can't prove it's normal for the President to stay stationary when he is in a known location


It's normal for a President with very little experience in public office and a notorious lack of skill in handling social situations.

What's NOT normal is for such a person to be elected in the first place, but that's a completely separate issue.


and there is an airborne threat that can strike at any time from anywhere.


Not until the Pentagon was hit was there a feeling that the skies were filled with hijacked airplanes. At the time, the attack seemed to be confined to New York.


I have my skeptic hat on and I say it's bull.


Your skeptic hat is bull? No argument here.


It certainly smells... were we supposed to see that film in the classroom?


Interesting non-sequitur. However, I personally saw the film at home, on my television. Since most people don't go to classrooms very often, I don't see how this could be expected.


How did Michael Moore get hold of it?

I'm sure the White House painted it differently before Michael Moore showed us what really happened.



I don't think Michael Moore has ever shown anyone anything that has really happened. "What Really Happened" doesn't sell movie tickets.

[Jonnyclueless]

You know what behavior I would find suspicious? If Bush had immediately leapt to his feet, thrust his finger into the air, and shouted, "A crisis! Don't worry children, I'LL save you!" Meanwhile, his aids would wring their hands and gibber, "What do we do, Mr. President? We need guidance!" Bush would then stride purposefully from the room, beckoning them to follow. "Come with me men, there's work to do!"

THAT would be suspicious.


And of course these people claiming his behavior was suspicious would be making such claim no matter what his behavior was. Had he acted suspiciously as you portray, they would be here making the same claim, pointing that he had to know because he responded too quickly.

That's the problem with starting with a pre-determined conclusion. And this is why 9 pages of explanations given and them pretending that no one has addressed the issue. But they are also very alone on this issue lol.

[Belz...]

I'm obviously not talking to skeptics here.

Insults will not avail you.

I think that behaviour is suspcious and I know I am certainly not alone.

Argument from popularity

Well that's your call... you can't prove it's normal for the President to stay stationary when he is in a known location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at any time from anywhere.

Assumption. They didn't know if there were other airborne threats at that time. And since the school was obviously safe because it was checked out, what then ?

I have my skeptic hat on and I say it's bull.

Argument from incredulity.

It certainly smells... were we supposed to see that film in the classroom?

Speculation.

How did Michael Moore get hold of it?

He certainly didn't steal it. The thing was broadcast.

I'm sure the White House painted it differently before Michael Moore showed us what really happened.

Michael Moore is a one-sided, biased fantasy maker. What he does is propaganda, pure and simple.

My argument is grounded in total logic.

Is there any other kind ?

[yodaluver28]

Still nobody has a reasonable explanation as to why when told 'America is under attack' the POTUS doesn't have a single question for at least the next 8 minutes.

What's the simplest explanation using the much loved skeptical razor?


The simplest explanation is that Al Qaeda struck the WTC in 1993 and had been planning furthur attacks against it ever since. There had been strong, but vague warnings and indications of an impending Al Qaeda attack throughout the summer of 2001, perhaps taking place on US soil. There had been concern that Al Qaeda operatives might hijack commercial jetliners. Andy Card tells Bush that the WTC has been hit by planes, probably hijacked jetliners. It doesn't take Stephen Hawking to do the math on that one.

As for Bush not leaving the room or school immediately:

1) The school had been throughly inspected and searched by local police and Secret Service. They were confidant that there were no bombs, hidden weapons, or security breaches inside the building.

2) There were snipers on the roof of the school in case of an attack by firearms.

3) At that point, the attacks had been confined to the WTC towers in NYC and even if there were other hijacked planes in the air, the odds of them knowing exactly which school they were in, finding it from the air, and hitting such a small building were beyond miniscule.

4) Given the increased threat of firearm or bomb attacks, agents needed time to re-inspect the route to the airport where Air Force One was waiting.

5) Since it was decided that Bush would need to stay in the building until the route to the airport had been checked, does it really matter what room he was in? At that point there was nothing he could do. He wasn't in NYC and couldn't help with what was going on there and in the event that there were other jets heading towards targets, there were qualified people in place, with access to far more up-to-the-minute information, to decide what to do about them.

[8den]

My argument is grounded in total logic.

It is not acceptable to have us believe that when the President is at a known and vulnerable location


You've yet to prove that the location was widespread knowledge in the days and weeks preceding the events of 911.


and there is an airborne threat that can strike at anytime from anywhere that it's OK to keep him there.


You've yet to provide evidence that the secret service thought there was any evidence of a hijack within a thousand miles of the presidents location.


You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.

You've yet to provide a better and more logical course of action, that doesn't involve the president being rushes to an unspecificed location, along an unspecificed route.


Oh and Harry, wake up, the Pet Goat footage was in the public domain far before Moore used it to juggernaught home his point, if you believe Farenheit 911 was the first forum that footage was ever broadcasted on, you are once again displaying the depth of your ignorance of the events on that day.

[Belz...]

Bump for Happy.

[pomeroo]

My argument is grounded in total logic.

It is not acceptable to have us believe that when the President is at a known and vulnerable location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at anytime from anywhere that it's OK to keep him there.

You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.


You have to demonstrate that you are privy to any inside information. Your criticism of Secret Service protocols is based on, what? You have yet to show that the men protecting Bush endangered him in any way or that anyone's behavior suggests an inside job. On the contrary, everything that happened on the morning of 9/11/01 indicates clearly that members of the government were stunned by the news of the attacks. How desperate must your evil movement be to clutch at straws like this?

[PhantomWolf]

You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.

It is a good idea to keep him there until:

a) A route to a more secure location has been established, closed off and secured.
b) The new location has been confirmed and secured as well.

On 9/11 the alternative locatioin was Airforce 1, a large Boeing 747 sitting on an open airfield. Which is the more likely target? A school that would be very difficult to locate from the air, or a 747 sitting out on an airfield?

Would it be sensible to take the POUS outside of the classroom without a secured route if there was a chance of snipers, ambushers, or bombers? All these things have to be considered and dealt with before you move him. A plane coming in won't just appear over the top of the school and hit it, ATC would see it at least 5-10 mins before it even got near, plenty of time to evac the POUS.