Either you remember seeing the 2ND plane hit which WAS on TV live, or you saw the first one secondhand later. But it was NOT shown live.

i already posted a live cnn feed that showed it... they didn't wait a day like JB said... they showed it before the second plane it...

You probably saw both.

Well either way, it was still AFTER the fact. And anyway Bush still couldn't have seen it, since by then he was already in the classroom with the kids. So either Bush misspoke, or he lied. Knowing the track record of our government, I'd guess it was the latter.

People Misspeak.

Yeah but this is a bit much......and really I don't trust them as far as I can throw them anyway to begin with. So anything like that is gonna raise an eyebrow with me.

The earliest possible publication of any video of the first plane hitting the towers was that evening and the next day.

That morning, before Bush was told about the second plane, there was no video of the first plane hitting the tower shown on ANY TV NETWORK.

He could not possibly have seen a video of the first plane hitting the tower. TWICE he told that story. Not once, but TWICE.

DUH!!

BUT that morning before he went into the classroom he had a security briefing. If he saw a video of the first plane hitting the tower at that time, then it was a video taken by someone who KNEW IN ADVANCE that the tower attack was going to happen, and was there to video tape it.

DUH!!

Great point, in a way the statement shows his hand if one is paying attention.

Yes it does. And the devil IS IN THE DETAILS.

That is how Matlock wins all of his cases, and that is how Jessica in Murder she wrote catches all the murderers! The details. Don't overlook or ignore the details.

My question is, did your wonderful de-bunking special address this little detail at all? I bet if they did they just shrugged and called it another stupid mistake or slip of the tongue by Bush. Yep it sure was a slip... a big slip.

Why on earth would he say he saw the first plane hit the tower on a television if he had not seen it? And why did he say he saw it .."in the lobby or somewhere..."

BECAUSE ....He saw it in his security briefing.

He was telling people what he saw in a top secret SECURITY BRIEFING!

At least he was not stupid enough to say that he saw it in a security briefing. He said he saw it ... in the lobby or something...:

HOW DUMB IS THAT? HOW DUMB ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SHRUG THAT OFF?

GEEEEZE. I feel like I live in a world of lunatics and morons.

Join the club. As the saying goes: War is peace, freedom is slavery, and if I may add one: truth is lies.

maybe i tuned in late that day but i didnt see the first impact until later.sure i saw the aftermath.how would they of gotten footage of the first impact? but i have yet to see any proof that a plane hit the pentagon.the rockafellers had a front row seat of the whole event.they rented rooms facing the towers.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xorR2Yo84Jo&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoJQJN1jOlc&feature=related

911 was a satanic ritual sacrifice. this is just to set up the nwo and the mark of the beast

There is so much evidence that Al-Qaida terrorists brought the WTC
towers down on 911 and no evidence at all to the contrary!

It is like battling facts with innuendo!!



Oh well... Go For It!

I did enjoy reading the articles ans looking at the pictures and video.



But several people have addressed the differences between the
incidents. Here is one description from

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7262969

=-=-=-=

The important thing to note is that although these incidents have similarities, they also have many very big differences.

The first major difference is the kind of building that the empire state building is.

The empire state building is made from reinforced concrete and other heavy building materials such as masonry. It has a central support column as well as many additional interior support columns, all made from reinforced concrete, steel and masonry.

The density (weight per unit volume) of the empire state building is approximately 38 pounds per cubic foot. The density of the twin towers: 8 or 9 pounds per cubic foot.

Why were the twin towers so light compared to the empire state building?

The twin towers were completed in 1970 and were built to optimize office space. This is a compromise. The buildings were more fragile, but had more office space per floor than older buildings like the empire state building.

The way this was accomplished is a central column of steel and concrete in the center supported most of the weight of the twin towers, with the outer walls kept in place with a system of steel trusses.

This means that unlike the empire state building, the twin towers did not have any interior support columns at all.

The empire state building is a dense, reinforced concrete, steel and masonry clad building. The twin towers in comparison were much more fragile, with one central support column and a system of steel trusses along the outer walls.


Notice the thick masonry walls of the building?

The second big difference between the two events is the type of plane that hit each building.

The B-25 bomber is a much smaller aircraft than a Boeing 767. It travels at a slower speed and carries much less fuel.

B-25D: Wingspan 67 feet, length 53 feet


Boeing 767: Wingspan 160 to 200 feet, length 156 to 170 feet


Most estimates I've seen peg the B-25D at around 1/10th the weight and fuel capacity of the Boeing 767.

The third important difference is speed and impact.

When the empire state building was hit, the plane was caught in a dense fog and was flying level. As a result, the plane impacted nearly horizontally along the 79th floor. It also failed to directly impact the interior support columns, nor did it damage them significantly.

The B-25 bomber hit at around 200 miles per hour. The 767s hit the twin towers at around 440 and 540 miles per hour. The 767s hit at a steep bank that damaged multiple floors. In the case of the B-25 bomber the direct damage by the plane was confined to the 79th floor.

However, as with the twin towers, burning fuel traveled down the elevator shafts of the empire state building. This caused loud explosion sounds, as well as severe damage and fire, in the lobby. This is significant because an observer could easily have concluded a secondary explosion occurred in the empire state building as well.

I think a good way to imagine this is think of yourself as a building.

Imagine you are hit in the chest with a one pound rock. Now imagine you are hit in the chest with a ten pound rock at twice the speed. These are different things, right?

If you also consider the sturdy design of the empire state building in comparison with the twin towers, most people would say that the crash of a B-25 into the empire state building does not support the theory that the twin towers were taken down by controlled demolition.

=-=-=-=-=



OK I yield the floor back to the self-deluded conspiracy theorists!

It's more like the other way around I'm afraid.

And yet we're accused of name calling........pot? I think the black kettle is calling........

I think the operative phrase is "I'm afraid".



At the heart of all these conspiracy theories seems to be an
intense paranoia which short circuits facts and logic...

it's not at all unlike the religious faithful claim that god created all with no evidence to show for it. nothing but innuendo. now there's a conspiracy theory to beat all conspiracy theories.

al queada admitted responsibility for 911. where's this 'other way around' evidence of which you speak? not the personal innuendo you've been spouting. actual evidence.

If you want it bad enough you can find it, I won't do your work for you, especially if you're just gonna take a crap on it. No point. I have better things to do than waste time on someone who isn't gonna listen.