He said he thought it was "a terrible pilot". Why would he think that on the second impact? He is obviously implying that he saw the first impact and lying about it.
There are live news reports related to the first crash with footage of the First Tower with time stamps on them as early as 8:52am. Easily provable. Why is it so impossible to believe he didn’t see that as his staff would have been aware of it. Schools have TV’s and I remember seeing this footage that morning when I turned on the TV after my daughter left for school. It took me a few seconds to comprehend it was live news, rather some movie of the week. His reaction was not surprising.
Too many beers? You have it backwards sir. Those who seek the truth don't buy into the Bush/Fangbeer fantasies. Truthers realize that all the facts contradict your claims and the official narrative.
This is exactly what Bush said word for word: "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in and I saw an airplane hit the tower, the TV was obviously on ..." The video isn't about "Truthers" or "fantasies", it's about the facts and obvious lies about 9/11 and its aftermath. For example, what Bush told the audience is clearly either a lie or something else for which anyone can speculate/fantasize. It's obvious YOU are trying to construct a narrative by making up your own fantasy about what he meant. Hypocrisy much? He may have seen news about the first plane hit on TV prior to entering the classroom, but there is no possible way he saw an airplane hit the tower as it wasn't televised ... unless. Anyone can speculate whether he just plain lied or he didn't but he publicly made a statement captured on video that is clearly impossible ... unless. I'm personally leaning toward he just plain lied but given that the official 9/11 narrative is provably false in many aspects (hence why many want to know the TRUTH about what really happened on 9/11 as opposed to obvious LIES), it's not too far fetched that he didn't lie. Those who believe the official 9/11 narrative believe in LIES and fantasies. And if after learning that much of it is a bunch of lies they still believe it, then they don't want to know the TRUTH. That is known as cognitive dissonance. "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" - George Orwell, "1984"
Truthers construct narratives like blind people assemble jigsaw puzzles. They start with their own image in their heads, dump out the box of pieces, and jam them together even if they are face down. Sometimes the same piece is used face up in one part of the image, and then upside down in another part. Peices are tossed out. Peices are trimmed. Peices are invented. I gave you a description of the data that was presented. You add subjectivity: Lying, advanced notice, the idea that he saw the impact. It's a product of your imagination, not the data.
On Friday when I woke up I saw a hurricane hit Florida. Do you think I'm claiming I saw the moment the hurricane hit? I opened my news app and saw a tractor trailer had flipped over closing both directions of a major highway. Do you think I had to see video of the truck flipping for that to be true? Could it be in both cases use of the word saw describes the act of seeing the news, not seeing the event the news describes?
Was there something you didn't understand about what I posted? Hint, it's not about hurricanes or tractor trailers. It doesn't matter what you or I "think" or what it "Could be", to a point. What matters is that what he publicly told the audience is impossible according to the facts as we know them. If he's lying, well we know he lied many times about many things, especially about 9/11 and the Middle East genocide. So we know he's a pathological liar like nearly every other President. However if he is telling the truth for a change then that's a whole other issue.
It's impossible that he saw a news report of a plane that hit a tower and thought it must have been an accident? No. It's not impossible. You think you've found some ambiguity in his statement. Maybe there is. Ambiguity does not provide clarity to your alternate narrative. "Saw" does not have to describe the act of seeing the plane hit. It can also describe the act of seeing the news report of the event. Saw is often used to mean "understood." I "see" truthers make this mistake all the time. Maybe one day you'll see the error in your ways. Also, you quoted my questions to you. Is that an attempt to characterize me as assuming what I had said? They were my words. I'm asking you what message they communicate to you. I saw a truck had flipped over closing both lanes of the highway. Does that mean you can catch me in a lie if you can't find video of the truck flipping over?
If Bush wanted to claim he saw the moment the plane hit, wouldn't he have used the imperfect tense? I saw the plane hitting the tower? Not I saw the plane hit the tower? A week ago I picked up a newspaper and saw Judge hit his 60th home run. Magic newspaper?
That's not what I posted or what he told the audience and you know it. That's not what I think or what I posted and you know it. What I posted is in plain English, use a dictionary if you don't understand the words. There is no "ambiguity" about what he told the audience or what I posted. What he told the audience is on video and it's an irrefutable fact. What I posted is the video and I also quoted his exact words. Quit making crap up that isn't remotely true. It's obvious you refuse to stick to the facts and insist on manufacturing your own personal narrative about what I posted. We're done.
I personally don't believe William Rodriquez as he has told a few porkies related to 9/11. For two years he said he heard the noise at the same time the plane hit, then two years later he amended his story to hearing the sound before. He claimed he was the last survivor of the north tower to be pulled from the rubble when in fact 18 other people were actually pulled pulled from the rubble after he walked out of the North Tower unharmed. Genelle Guzman-McMillan was the last survivor of the north tower. The following are Rodriguez's own words -- The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized. https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/rodriguezstatementtonist The problem here is that Rodriguez has claimed that the fireball which burned people on the basement levels could not have been caused by jet fuel traveling down the elevator shafts. He says the explosions came from the bottom of the tower. If so, then any fire balls would have travelled up the elevator shafts, not down as he claimed when the plane hit the building. He also stated he smelled kerosene which is what jet fuel is made up of. I am just pointing this out because it's obvious there are holes in the support that the towers fell due to controlled demolition. It may be true that then President Bush was known to lie, this guy is lying too and obviously so. I think out of Bush and Rodriguez, Rodriguez stands out as the liar related to 9/11. Link to some debunking of what the truthers contend -- https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
It's your prerogative but you should be more concerned about the fact that the 9/11 Commission is a proven scam and that their report is basically a coverup. And part of that is the fact that several whistleblowers, not just Rodriguez, have testified in front of the 9/11 Commission and that their testimonies are missing from the report. In Rodriguez's case, he gave them a list of eyewitnesses who could corroborate (or refute) his testimony yet none were ever called by the 9/11 Commission to testify. I can give you many more links to phony "debunking" sites, I've read most of them. A new book will be published shortly called "Debunking Popular Mechanics" that claims to take apart a host of their claims, here's just one example: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...ate-myth-about-wtc-7-s-scooped-out-10-stories The main problem with the Popular Mechanics piece is that it's more about "conspiracy theorists" than about science and that it's also more about a regurgitation of NIST's hypotheses which have been proven to be fraudulent.
None of what you say means that 9/11 was an inside job. I have learned one thing about those who believe in conspiracy theories, they engage in a ton of cognitive bias, ignore any holes in their theories, and always say any links that provide any scepticism of a conspiracy theory are useless. I was simply pointing out that Rodriguez has been shown to be a liar. Apparently, a lot of stuff he has claimed about 9/11 has been debunked by different sources. What he claimed just after 9/11 was much different than what he later claimed. What would these eyewitnesses testify to? Why have these eyewitnesses not come forward with their stories? Maybe because they really have nothing to say of relevance. Who knows. I can imagine anybody who was a witness was actually in the North Tower when the plane hit. What were they to witness? Even Rodriguez said he heard a loud sound at the time of the explosion. He witnessed people having been burnt by fireballs coming out of the elevator shafts, others would have seen this too. What else was there? He made himself into a hero and lied about being the last survivor in the rubble. He then changed his story to jive with a lawsuit and to make him famous. I don’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job, there is too much evidence to say otherwise. Just like the moon landings weren’t fake. It’s all just conspiracy theories based on very weak and manufactured ‘evidence’.
I just got finished watching the actual town hall. Still don't see what you're talking about. You can watch it yourself if you like. It's on a super secret website called georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov Here's the direct link: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/12/ I've also done you the favor of transcribing some of it so you can see what he said for himself. (See what I did there?) Question from 3rd grader, Jordan: How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attacks? Now your premise is that we need to use a strict literal interpretation to understand a president who was notorious for bungling the English language, (don't misunderestimate his use of the word nukular). Using this strict literal interpretation we can understand that the President allegedly fabricated a lie of seeing a jet hit a building to support an alleged lie that he thought it was a horrible accident so that he could pull the wool over the eyes of a third grader named Jordan. Great detective work there.
And vertical structures over 200 meters can just be thrown together like puzzle pieces. No need for accurate data on the distributions of wrought iron, steel or concrete.
Still operating under the false belief that a static load is the same as a dynamic load? Looks like MIT made the right choice.
And still maintaining your lying delusions. I demonstrated static vs dynamic. So where is your quote from the NIST about the quantity of concrete? Where is your model that can support itself but then completely collapse when the top 15% is be dropped on the rest?
Your post is a lot more concerned with defending the 9/11 Commission and their phony investigation and subsequent phony report and vilifying those who question/challenge it. That's because what I posted in response to your post has nothing to do with an inside job. So why are you inserting a red herring into this discussion? That's exactly what most posters who believe and defend the official 9/11 conspiracy theory do, thanks for agreeing. You do realize that most of those in law enforcement and the intelligence and legal communities are educated in and make a living out of conspiracy theories and that there are numerous federal and state statutes that reference conspiracies. So are you saying that the above is true about these people? Thanks for your personal opinion but I was pointing out something entirely different and much more important than your extremely narrow point of view. So in your opinion all investigations should avoid having eyewitnesses testify if the investigators believe they have nothing to say of relevance prior to their testimony despite that they claim they have a lot to say? All these people testified, some for hours, yet all their testimonies were omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. There were many whistleblowers who did publicly testify regardless and others that the 9/11 Commission avoided altogether despite that they were given their names. There were others who would have testified but the 9/11 Commission refused to grant them any immunity. There is an entire thread in this section of the forum devoted to whistleblowers. Exactly, who knows because much of what we do know has been suppressed by the US government. But we do know a lot of it is simply false, including that we do know a lot of it is scientifically impossible. Of course you are free to believe anything you like. However, there's a lot more evidence that points to an inside job than evidence that says otherwise. There's quite a bit that has been posted in this section of the forum. 9/11 was not a moon landing. Conflating the 2 events is yet another red herring. That's exactly what the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is, complete with manufactured evidence, lack of evidence and most importantly, impossibilities.
Can you show me how you scaled gravity and young's modulus to your physical model? Might be why the NASA guy used a mathematical model. Or do you believe a 5" thick ring of paper with a radius of 104 feet could hold itself up, let alone a 100 story building? Not even sure where you'd find 100' wide tree to attach it to.
You demonstrate my point for me. I deliberately made my model as weak as possible but still support the static load. The weak supports sustained damage but ultimately arrested the dynamic load long before complete destruction. And I had to make the supports stronger toward the bottom because of the increased static load. What did the NASA "guy" say about that? Where did he do the math for the greater energy required to destroy stronger supports further down? Oh yeah, the NIST does not provide data on the distribution of steel down the towers like can be seen in the iron down the Eiffel Tower.
And I keep explaining to you that your model is not an analog to the actual building. If you drop a 1 foot square cube of iron from 1 foot does it have one tenth the momentum of a 10 foot square cube of iron from 10 feet? Nope. Does a 1 inch sheet of .004 paper on edge have a tenth of the buckling resistance of a 10 inch sheet of .04 paper? Nope. Your model is nonsense because scaling down your model produces less force and more rigidity. Especially when most of the rigidity comes from a comical wooden dowel.
You don't explain squat. You just think that you can convince people that they are more stupid than you are and browbeat them. My model is a PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION! I put up a picture of the Eiffel Tower to show that progressively more material had to be in place toward the bottom to support the weight above. But the Eiffel Tower did not have to support more than its own weight in concrete. You keep spewing out mathematical bullshit to show us how smart you are but where is the data to put into the equations? There were horizontal beams in the core at each level to keep the 47 columns from buckling. What was the weight of those beams? Did they vary in thickness down the building? Lon Waters PhD used to have a website showing the cross section of the columns in the core all of the way up the towers. He admitted that he could not find anything on the horizontal beams. This is not about conspiracy. This is about scientific travesty in analyzing the collapses and people like you just going along with the bullshit.
