Bush telling his version of 911

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
Bush telling his version of 911
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9eb9qCml86U

Now correct me if im wrong here, G.W.Bush was not sitting out side the classroom when he heard about the attacks on 9/11, in this video he clearly states that's what happen ,i mean if you hear about an attack, such as this do you then go and sit with a bunch of kiddy's ,while your country's being attacked.:roll:

im going to go find the video that has him in it,sitting with the children, when he was told about the attacks,this was pretty well documented evidence..8O
 

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
Bush 9/11
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PsE8TEu7ojQ
ere George violates his oath of office by not acting in defense of this country. In a speech "President meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting" George admits to have already seen the first plane hit on tv prior to joining these school children. Here he is told of the second attack.


This was when he was told about the attacks ,he's lying about it in the first video ,no way could he have seen the first plane hit NO WAY
 

thomaska

Council Member
May 24, 2006
1,509
37
48
Great Satan
We all see what we want to see I suppose.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is a treatable malady. The cure will come in January, when Bush leaves office.

Then...all you retards will have a brand new Us President to obsess over for at least 4 years. It's almost over, my tin foil clad buddy.

Buck up lil camper, stay strong.
:roll:
 

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
We all see what we want to see I suppose.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is a treatable malady. The cure will come in January, when Bush leaves office.

Then...all you retards will have a brand new Us President to obsess over for at least 4 years. It's almost over, my tin foil clad buddy.

Buck up lil camper, stay strong.
:roll:

Oy thomaska the nurse is calling ya time for your tablets :roll:
 

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
Quandary, I think this video with Bush telling us he saw the first plane hit the tower etc. is just adding another fog candle to this mess of differing statements and opinions. It is entirely possible that Bush himself had no foggy idea about what was happening that morning.
 

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
Quandary, I think this video with Bush telling us he saw the first plane hit the tower etc. is just adding another fog candle to this mess of differing statements and opinions. It is entirely possible that Bush himself had no foggy idea about what was happening that morning.

Yes it is possible that he had no idea what was happening ,my point being is he is lying when he said he saw the first plane hit the towers that morning on tv, the actual footage of the first plane hitting was not shown until the 12/11/2001 not on the 11,like he is insinuating.
 

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
Yes it is possible that he had no idea what was happening ,my point being is he is lying when he said he saw the first plane hit the towers that morning on tv, the actual footage of the first plane hitting was not shown until the 12/11/2001 not on the 11, like he is insinuating.
Lying is an integral part of politics! So is omission of the truth. With lies and deception wars get started and won, too. People's expectations of Bush are not very high; most everybody knows he is just the front clown.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Yes it is possible that he had no idea what was happening ,my point being is he is lying when he said he saw the first plane hit the towers that morning on tv, the actual footage of the first plane hitting was not shown until the 12/11/2001 not on the 11,like he is insinuating.
He probably saw the news on TV which talked about a plane hitting the building. It would be easy to explain in the moment that you saw the plane hit the building when you meant you saw the news story about a plane hitting the building. At the time it wasn't evident it was terrorism. It seems the primary thought after only the first hit was that a terrible accident had happened. It wasn't until #2 hit that everyone collectively figured out it was no accident.
 

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
He probably saw the news on TV which talked about a plane hitting the building. It would be easy to explain in the moment that you saw the plane hit the building when you meant you saw the news story about a plane hitting the building. At the time it wasn't evident it was terrorism. It seems the primary thought after only the first hit was that a terrible accident had happened. It wasn't until #2 hit that everyone collectively figured out it was no accident.

Sorry to contradict you, he said he saw the FIRST plane hit the building,he could not of as like i keep pointing out that footage was not aired until the 12,not the 11
He probably saw the news on TV which talked about a plane hitting the building
He does not say this he says he saw the plane hit
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Sorry to contradict you, he said he saw the FIRST plane hit the building,he could not of as like i keep pointing out that footage was not aired until the 12,not the 11

He does not say this he says he saw the plane hit
I understand that, but as I said he probably was referring to watching the coverage of a plane hitting the building. Not everyone gets the opportunity to have an editor script every word out of their mouth, and it isn't like Bush is a communications expert.
 

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
I understand that, but as I said he probably was referring to watching the coverage of a plane hitting the building. Not everyone gets the opportunity to have an editor script every word out of their mouth, and it isn't like Bush is a communications expert.

Hes trying to cover his ass by saying that he did not know what was going on , in video two that i posted his face says it all , he knew all about it ,he planed it to invade Iraq,and he was just sitting these with the kiddies, when anyone with real balls ,or hadn't set up this entire fiasco would of raced out of the quick style,his entire demeanor when told about the second plane hitting says it all
Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies, Part 2:White House Cover-up Creates More Problems than it Solvesby Jared Israel
[7 October 2002]Part I, "A Strange White House Press Conference," can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif1.htm
=================================
Advanced Damage Control
On the evening of September 11th, 2001, the White House held a Press Conference. The stated purpose of the press conference? To "give you a walk-through of the President's day; what he did when he learned various pieces of information."
Isn't that amazing? It was the evening of September 11th and only a few hours ago the U.S. had suffered an unprecedented terrorist attack. Under these circumstances, what was the most pressing information the White House needed to share with U.S. citizens? Was it the extent of destruction in New York and Washington? The progress of emergency operations? The organization of an investigation to see how this could have happened?
No. Apparently, from the White House point of view, the most important information was a detailed itinerary of the president's movements on that morning of 9-11.
Why would the White House conduct such a peculiar exercise during such a crisis? What were they thinking? Our only explanation is that they wanted to establish an alibi for Mr. Bush.
But why would the White House believe they needed an alibi? Were they being paranoid?
We don't think so.
All over the country, people were asking how come no planes had been "scrambled" (sent into the air) during the attack. What was wrong with the military command? What was wrong with President Bush, who is Commander in Chief of the military?
Rumors were circulating that the President spent the crucial period from 9:00 to 9:30 AM in a classroom, reading a story about a pet goat.
Of course it was actually *the children* who read the story, not Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush only sat there and listened and smiled and clapped and cheered and gave the children pep talks while a second commercial jet hit the World Trade Center and, we are told, two other commercial jets reversed course, speeding towards Washington, D.C. (2)
At the White House press conference, the president's Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, said that on the morning of 9-11, Mr. Bush was quickly informed and that he immediately carried out his responsibilities. Bush supposedly arrived at the Booker School shortly before 9:00 AM and then, after shaking some hands, was briefed by his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, and by his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice.
But Fleischer also claimed that Mr. Bush didn't know the attack was terrorist in nature until well after these two briefings. Supposedly, neither Card nor Rice said anything about hijackings and terrorists when they spoke to Mr. Bush!
The Key to the White House Spin
In order to believe the White House, people had to believe that Mr. Card and Ms. Rice did not know that the first WTC crash resulted from a hijacking. Because if they *did know* then why wouldn't they tell Mr. Bush when they spoke to him, supposedly just after 9 AM?
And if they did tell him, why wouldn't he immediately contact his military commanders, i.e., do his job?
In order for people to swallow the line that Mr. Card and Ms. Rice did not know this was a terrorist attack they also had to believe that the FAA (the Federal Aviation Administration) and the U.S. military did not know.
Why?
Because both the FAA and the military monitor air traffic. Once they knew a plane had been hijacked, they would have informed the Secret Service and the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice. And the Secret Service and Ms. Rice would have informed the President.
Thus Mr. Bush would have known a terrorist attack was underway.
And this would mean the whole White House story was a lie.
For the first few days government officials and the media reported that the air safety/air defense system did *not* know there was an attack until after the Pentagon crash.
As long as this was the official story, Mr. Fleischer's explanation could stand. If nobody was aware of the attack then nobody could have told Mr. Bush. And just as the military couldn't take action if they didn't know there was an attack, neither could Mr. Bush.
Gen. Myers Says, We Didn't Know 'til 9:45...
As late as September 13th, General Richard B. Myers, vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put forward this 'nobody-took-action-because-nobody-knew' line. This was in response to questions from Senators during Myers' nomination hearing to be head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Here's what Myers said:
"MYERS: When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft...That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck."
-- Sept. 13th hearing (3)
Unfortunately for the White House spin, the 'nobody-took-action-because-nobody-knew' story turned out to be a loser. Counter-information appeared in the press, including a damning article by Matthew Wald, published in the New York Times on September 13th. (4)
That same day, at General Richard B. Myers' Senate hearing, the senators criticized the official story. They literally demanded something better. And they got it. Myers, soon to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rewrote his story.
...I Mean 8:45!
At the start of the hearings, Myers had said the military only sent planes up "after the Pentagon was hit" around 9:45 AM. At the end of the hearings, he said the military took action around 8:45 - a full hour earlier! (3)
After Myers' testimony, the Armed Forces Committee went into closed (non-public) session until the afternoon of September 14th. Because this was a secret session, we have no record of what was said.
But after the end of the secret session, on the evening of September 14th, CBS evening news put forward a whole new account of what happened on September 11th. Without divulging who was the source of this new and mind-boggling information, CBS claimed that contrary to previous reports, the military had dispatched fighter jets as early as 8:38 AM. In other words the FAA *did* know a terrorist attack was going on and *did* contact the military and the military *did* act. They were just too late.
Then on September 16th Vice President Cheney was interviewed on MEET THE PRESS. During that interview, he asserted that the Secret Service established open lines to the FAA as soon as the first plane hit the World Trade Center. Thus by around 8:45 AM the Secret Service *had to know* a terrorist attack was underway.
What a Mess
The Secret Service knew. Therefore National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Andrew Card knew. And, according to Mr. Fleischer, Mr. Bush spoke to Andrew Card and took a call from Ms. Rice shortly after he entered the Booker School around 9 AM. Which would mean Mr. Bush knew a terrorist attack was in progress.
If people took the new official story, that the air safety/air defense establishment *knew* a major terrorist attack was underway by 8:38 AM, and if they combined it with Fleischer's claim, namely that Mr. Bush spoke to his advisers just after 9 AM, then the logical conclusion was: either Mr. Bush was guilty of criminal negligence or Mr. Bush was guilty of treason.
Thus the White House press statement on the evening of 9-11 had created a disaster far worse than the one it was concocted to solve. Sir Walter Scott knew what he was talking about when he wrote:
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!" -- http://www.bartleby.com/100/338.25.html
If Your Web's a Mess, Spin Spin Spin!
To fix their tangled web, the White House folks did two things.
First, they quietly dropped Fleischer's statement about what Mr. Bush "did when he learned various pieces of information." They guessed that Mr. Fleischer's words would be forgotten in the shock of events. We believe they guessed right.
Second, after a decent interval, they floated a whole new explanation of what Mr. Bush learned and what he did and when he did it on the morning of 9-11. This was put forward by Mr. Bush himself during two so-called Town Hall meetings. The first was in December 2001 in Florida. The second was in January 2002 in California. Of course, the new spin further tangled the web. So many stories, so many lies. But the White House hoped nobody would look too deep.
They were not hoping in vain. It is our observation that the mainstream Western press can be relied upon not to look too deep. But we are not the mainstream Western press. So, let us go carefully through the stages of this process.
Coming Soon...
In forthcoming Sections of this article we shall examine:
* The official story from 9-11 until the evening of 9-14, including its obvious flaws. (This was the story that jibed with what Fleischer said on the evening of the 11th.)
* The transformation of the official story during the Senate Armed Forces hearing on September 13th. This transformation is amazingly clear from the transcript of the hearing. If the hearing had been televised, nobody would have believed the official story. However, not one TV station in the U.S. broadcast the hearing.
* The main new official story, floated by CBS on the evening of September 14th. (Only later was CBS parroted by the government)
* A secondary story floated by the CIA and Islamic Fundamentalists and repeated by various other folks. According to this secondary story, "the Jews did it." This was intended for the consumption of Muslims around the world as well as for critics of US policy and others who doubted the official story.
* The revision of the White House spin on "what Mr Bush learned and did and when", as put forward by President Bush in the Town Hall meetings in Florida and California, in December and January.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif2.htm
he Likely MotiveOn the one hand, the Secret Service, which has the responsibility for protecting the president from any possible threat to his life, should have assumed, once it was clear that terrorists were going after high-value targets, that the president might have been one of those targets. As one article put it, “Bush’s presence made . . . the planned reading event a perceived target,” because “the well-publicized event at the school assured Bush’s location that day was no secret.” On the other hand, people observed that the Secret Service had not acted accordingly. The day after 9/11, Canada’s Globe and Mail commented: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [Bush] away.”

The background for this comment was explained by Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. "With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?” But this agent’s decision was obviously overridden by some higher-level Secret Service agent, as Bush was allowed not only to remain in the classroom for seven or more minutes, but also to remain at the school for another twenty minutes. He was even allowed to deliver a television address to the nation, thereby letting everyone know that he was still at the school.
This behavior seemed especially reckless in light of reports, issued at the time, that as many as eleven planes had been hijacked. The Secret Service should have feared that one of those planes was bearing down on the school at that very moment. The Secret Service’s behavior, however, suggested that it had no fear that the school would be attacked.
This behavior by the Secret Service contrasted strongly with the response, two months earlier, to a report that Islamic terrorists might crash an airliner into the summit of industrialized nations in Genoa, Italy, in an effort to kill President Bush. The Italian government closed the airspace above Genoa and installed anti-aircraft missiles at the airport (David Sanger, New York Times, September 25, 2001). Even with all this protection, Bush stayed overnight on an aircraft carrier, instead of staying, like the other leaders, on a luxury ship (CNN, July 18, 2001). Why so much concern about merely possible terrorist airplane attacks in Genoa in July but no such concern in Sarasota in September, when such attacks were actually in progress?
The Secret Service’s failure to hustle Bush away seemed even stranger in light of the reports that Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and several congressional leaders were quickly taken to safe locations. Should not protecting President Bush have been an even higher priority? As Susan Taylor Martin of the St. Petersburg Times put it on July 4, 2004: “One of the many unanswered questions about that day is why the Secret Service did not immediately hustle Bush to a secure location, as it apparently did with Vice President Dick Cheney.”
The fact that this question was raised immediately after 9/11, then continued to be raised, could well have been perceived by the White House as dangerous. This question did, in fact, have dangerous implications, because it could---and in some circles did---lead to the inference that Bush was not evacuated from the school because the Secret Service knew that he would not be targeted. The desire to stop this kind of speculation was likely behind the White House’s attempts at getting a revisionist account of Bush’s behavior instilled into the public consciousness.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8555
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
But this agent’s decision was obviously overridden by some higher-level Secret Service agent, as Bush was allowed not only to remain in the classroom for seven or more minutes, but also to remain at the school for another twenty minutes. He was even allowed to deliver a television address to the nation, thereby letting everyone know that he was still at the school.

No one knew it was a terrorist attack at the time of the first plane hitting. Are they suppose to ship the President away at any sign of potential terrorism? Did they put him in the bunker when that train exploded yesterday?
 

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
No one knew it was a terrorist attack at the time of the first plane hitting. Are they suppose to ship the President away at any sign of potential terrorism? Did they put him in the bunker when that train exploded yesterday?

Did you read what ive just posted or what..????
This behavior by the Secret Service contrasted strongly with the response, two months earlier, to a report that Islamic terrorists might crash an airliner into the summit of industrialized nations in Genoa, Italy, in an effort to kill President Bush. The Italian government closed the airspace above Genoa and installed anti-aircraft missiles at the airport (David Sanger, New York Times, September 25, 2001). Even with all this protection, Bush stayed overnight on an aircraft carrier, instead of staying, like the other leaders, on a luxury ship (CNN, July 18, 2001). Why so much concern about merely possible terrorist airplane attacks in Genoa in July but no such concern in Sarasota in September, when such attacks were actually in progress?
point 1
...I Mean 8:45!
At the start of the hearings, Myers had said the military only sent planes up "after the Pentagon was hit" around 9:45 AM. At the end of the hearings, he said the military took action around 8:45 - a full hour earlier!
point 2 if the official story is to be believed.
Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at the University of New Orleans, concurs: "I don't understand how one sits there. I just don't. Minutes are an eternity in that sort of situation. . . . A quick presidential decision may save lives."
I Agree with this guy "I don't understand how one sits there. I just don't.:?:
 

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence

Interpreting the President's Image in Crisis

By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page C01

You're at a photo op, reading a book with schoolchildren and an aide suddenly whispers that a second plane has hit the World Trade Center. "America is under attack."
You're the president of the United States. What do you do?

There have been other moments like this in American history, when the chief executive was suddenly plunged into a crisis, but they weren't caught on videotape. George W. Bush was on camera in an elementary school in Sarasota, Fla. He could see the pagers of reporters and photographers going off, one by one. He was on the spot like few people have ever been.
From two different angles, Americans have new glimpses of that historic moment. One comes from rabble-rousing Michael Moore, whose Bush-eviscerating film "Fahrenheit 9/11" premieres next week, and includes an uninterrupted seven-minute segment showing Bush's reaction after hearing the news of the attack. He doesn't move.
Instead he continues to sit in the classroom, listening to children read aloud. Moore lets the tape roll as the minutes pass painfully by.
And now from a second angle: The staff of the 9/11 Commission this week released a report that summarizes Bush's closed-door testimony about his thoughts as he sat there.
"The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis . . . The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."
This moment will surely be used by the president's political opponents, and with equal fervor defended by his supporters. However it is interpreted, it points out a basic truth about any president: He's both an executive and a symbolic figure. He's the spiritual leader of the nation as well as the head of state. He's monarch and prime minister.
Sometimes he has to decide what role to take.
Presidential historian Robert Dallek of Boston University thinks Bush focused too much on appearances, rather than leaping into action.
"It speaks volumes about the preoccupation these politicians have about manipulating image," Dallek said yesterday. Bush should have immediately excused himself and started figuring out what was happening and what he could do. "The way to project calm and strength is to take care of business."
Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at the University of New Orleans, concurs: "I don't understand how one sits there. I just don't. Minutes are an eternity in that sort of situation. . . . A quick presidential decision may save lives."
Brinkley credits Bush with dusting himself off after a rough first day and regaining his composure. And he acknowledges that few presidents have had to endure such a Candid Camera moment. But Brinkley adds, "Character is not defined in good times, when you've been properly briefed, it's defined when you're in a desperate crisis situation."
Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein, a professor emeritus at Princeton, defends Bush's response in the initial minutes.
"It's made a little more complex by being in the presence of little kids," Greenstein said. "It certainly wouldn't present the right message if he turned white, rushed out, and kids started crying."
The commission report this week is not the first glimpse into Bush's thought processes in the critical minutes after the first planes crashed. Bush has previously told Bob Woodward, "They had declared war on us, and I made up my mind at that moment that we were going to war."
Eventually, at the suggestion of an aide, Bush got up and went to a holding room. He spoke briefly to the vice president, his national security adviser, the governor of New York and the head of the FBI, according to the commission report. Then, the report states, Bush spent roughly 15 minutes working on what he'd say to the cameras at the elementary school. He was acting as Communicator in Chief, in a sense. With his senior aides, he worked on his lines.
"As far as we know, no one was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President's statement to the nation. No decisions were made at this time, other than the decision to return to Washington," the report states. The president was persuaded to fly to Louisiana and then Nebraska before finally returning to the capital.
Presidents of an earlier era did not have to contend with so many cameras and microphones and the endless appetite for material to put on 24-hour cable news channels. Greenstein said that there are anecdotal reports that, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR held his head in his hands and despaired of the future of his presidency. But that is not the image Americans retain of Roosevelt's reaction.
Instead we think of his powerful address to Congress the next day -- his "date which will live in infamy" speech.
Nor do we have tape of John F. Kennedy learning that the Soviets had placed missiles in Cuba. Sally Bedell Smith, author of a new book on the Kennedy White House, says that his national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy, didn't even pass the portentous news to Kennedy for about 12 hours. Kennedy had returned from an exhausting campaign trip. Bundy decided that "a quiet evening and a night of sleep were the best preparation" for the critical days ahead. As the crisis unfolded, Kennedy slept.
Americans did not see Lyndon Johnson's immediate reaction to the assassination of JFK. But Johnson, who had been in the same motorcade, made a quick image-conscious decision: Although he automatically became president upon Kennedy's death, he arranged to be sworn in on Air Force One with Jackie Kennedy at his side. The photograph of that moment became iconic, not so much because of the somber Johnson as for the shocked widow with blood on her dress.
"He wanted this as a symbol of his authority," Dallek said. "Jackie is at his side and she's giving legitimacy to his presidency."
Bush was conscious on Sept. 11 of the need, for symbolic reasons, to return to Washington, but was persuaded by the Secret Service, Cheney and other aides that the situation was too risky. Some critics, Dallek among them, say Bush should have overruled his aides. The commission report states that all participants agree that Bush argued forcefully for returning.
The commission report portrays a discombobulated government that can't even keep track of the hijacked planes. Fighter planes fly in the wrong direction, pilots have no idea why they're in the air (maybe a cruise missile attack?), orders don't get passed along the chain of command. Everyone's flying blind. The president borrows a cell phone to try to get through to the White House.
Symbolically and substantively, the ship of state was foundering.
But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's spiritual leader rallied in the days thereafter. His bullhorn performance on the rubble of the World Trade Center is considered a bravura moment. He made compelling appearances at the National Cathedral, before Congress, and in a news conference in the East Room of the White House. When professional baseball resumed play, he courageously walked to the mound in a crowded stadium and threw out the first pitch.
Some of these images will reappear in the months ahead as the election nears and the commercials begin to saturate the airwaves. The president has surely had some excellent moments.
And seven excruciating minutes.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53548-2004Jun18?language=printer
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Re 8:45 or 9:45, there are many different time zones in North America. It was 6:45 where I am. It was probably 10:15 in some obscure part of NewFoundland.

Why so much concern about merely possible terrorist airplane attacks in Genoa in July but no such concern in Sarasota in September, when such attacks were actually in progress?
If some gave an an answer would that satisfy the conspiracy theorists? Wouldn't that ruin the conspiracy?
 

quandary121

Time Out
Apr 20, 2008
2,950
8
38
lincolnshire
uk.youtube.com
Re 8:45 or 9:45, there are many different time zones in North America. It was 6:45 where I am. It was probably 10:15 in some obscure part of NewFoundland.


If some gave an an answer would that satisfy the conspiracy theorists? Wouldn't that ruin the conspiracy?

Why is it when people are faced with the truth about something, the first thing they say is your a conspiracy theorists like its the answer .!!!

8:45 or 9:45, there are many different time zones in North America. It was 6:45 where I am. It was probably 10:15 in some obscure part of NewFoundland.

Don't be so ridiculous it was a blatant lie so that they could collaborate there stories, they were caught out then decided to change the facts to fit the story,i cant believe that you would come up with such a lame answer as that,even the article said so

The Key to the White House Spin
Gen. Myers Says, We Didn't Know 'til 9:45......I Mean 8:45!What a Mess ..If Your Web's a Mess, Spin Spin Spin!
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Why is it when people are faced with the truth about something, the first thing they say is your a conspiracy theorists like its the answer .!!!



Don't be so ridiculous it was a blatant lie so that they could collaborate there stories, they were caught out then decided to change the facts to fit the story,i cant believe that you would come up with such a lame answer as that,even the article said so

The Key to the White House Spin
Gen. Myers Says, We Didn't Know 'til 9:45......I Mean 8:45!What a Mess ..If Your Web's a Mess, Spin Spin Spin!
It was 6:45.