How did Bush manage to see the first plane hit on live TV?

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:47 pm

I happened upon a fantastically detailed account of exactly what Bush did and when on that day:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time ... ngday.html

Amongst the nuggets contained therein is a second quote from a different occasion that makes it clear that Bush thinks he saw the first plane hit:

On January 5, 2002, Bush stated: "Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida ... and my Chief of Staff – well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane..."

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 105-3.html

So it clearly isn't just a grammatical lapse.

The whole article is well worth reading and raises all kinds of interesting questions. Certainly makes this project look even more dubious.

Ryan

mikenycLI · Postby **mikenycLI** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:57 pm

Well, Ryan, it reinforces any, and all, of the feelings you want to have about what "really" happened, not including The Truth. We can't handle the Truth.

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:17 pm

Well, Ryan, it reinforces any, and all, of the feelings you want to have about what "really" happened, not including The Truth. We can't handle the Truth.

Well, I'm not one of those who take Bush's bizarre claim to mean that he had access to actual live footage of the first hit because the administration was complicit in the attacks. That's way outside of even my paranoia. (And if it was true and Bush slipped up by revealing it, he wouldn't have done it again.)

So what *does* it mean? I dunno. Why does he claim to have seen the first plane hit? Why did he linger in the school (where it was public knowledge he would be, in a city where two of the highjackers were just days prior) for 30 minutes after everyone in the country knew a terror attack was underway? Why was Cheney rushed to a bunker while the President remained vulnerable and in plain view with a bunch of schoolkids? Why was there no fighter cover for Air Force One *two hours* after the attacks started? Why was the story about Air Force One security codes being compromised invented? Why did the "one year later" stories falsely claim that Bush immediately rushed out of the classroom? Why the cover-up?

Beats me.

Granted, it was a chaotic day and weird, inexplicable things were bound to happen. But even by those standards, it's difficult to fathom.

Ryan

mikenycLI · Postby **mikenycLI** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:49 pm

To me, there seems to be a cover-up, and it exists because it hides, something sooooooooooo embarassing, and sooooooooo criminal, to Bush, personally and politically, that it could not be defended under "normal conditions" by his Press Secretary.

Anything "beyond" his control to news manage it, is beyond my imagination to think of...but I feel, the consensus of others, is similar to mine. Something is rotten here.