Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers


Status
Not open for further replies.
To any sane observer the Guardian article would simply reinforce their already held opinion that George W Bush had difficulty distinguishing his arse from his elbow and not that he was watching 'some live secret feed'.

Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but this isn't some man off the street getting mixed up, this is the commander in chief of the country that was attacked.

I'd think it was prudent to see what his reaction was to the attacks, not just making stuff up as he goes along ffs.

So did he see any of the planes hit live? Why would he feel he has to lie about this fundamental aspect of that day.
 
Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but this isn't some man off the street getting mixed up, this is the commander in chief of the country that was attacked.

I'd think it was prudent to see what his reaction was to the attacks, not just making stuff up as he goes along ffs.

So did he see any of the planes hit live? Why would he feel he has to lie about this fundamental aspect of that day.

Well, most would think perhaps, he got a bit confused (he had form tbf) and meant he heard of it rather than he must have had some secret live feed.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

Bush says he saw the 1st plane hit live. He was in a classroom reading a book for the 2nd so the only live one he could've recalled had to be the 1st one hitting, the footage not being released until days afterwards.

Bush recollects watching a plane hit the towers on a tv before he joins the kids on that day and thinks pilot error (his words). He can't be talking about the 2nd one, because anyone who see's the 2nd plane hit, knows its not pilot error. Ergo he was watching some live secret feed that wasn't available to anybody else. How can that be explained away?

So in his own words....

-He watches the 1st plane hit on tv, thinks pilot error.
-Walks into the classroom, starts reading an upside down book.
-Gets whispered into the ear by the chief of staff informing of the 2nd one hitting.
-Stays there, finishes the talk with the kids and then pays attention to the attack afterwards.

What does this even mean and what is it's relevance?

If your point is on Seen the first plane you're just being silly. He would meant seen the explosion/news story immediately after. Not that it makes a jot of difference anyway. Just another utterly irrelevant snippet for CTs to cling onto. lol

I think you've reached rock bottom. ;)
 
any more proof on WTC being built to withstand multiple 747 strikes?

We all know it wasnt. It was designed to withstand A plane, flying about lost. Not being flown at full pelt deliberately.

Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but this isn't some man off the street getting mixed up, this is the commander in chief of the country that was attacked.

I'd think it was prudent to see what his reaction was to the attacks, not just making stuff up as he goes along ffs.

So did he see any of the planes hit live? Why would he feel he has to lie about this fundamental aspect of that day.

Him getting confused etc backs up the thought it wasnt an inside job. If it was, im sure he'd have practiced getting a few comments bang on.
 
You don't know that, it is only in your imaginaton. That is just bollocks. Provide evidence please.

Seriously though, until you start to write like anything other than a 10 year old kid nobody is going to take you seriously. I mean, where else other than their own footprint would you expect tall buildings to fall?

i actually think you're clueless. don't think for a minute I'm bothered who thinks what about me and views on this thread. its you who need convince me to take you seriously - you've done no research into the structural monstrosity that were the world trade centre towers - 200'000 tonnes of steel and 780 million kg of concrete https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM would not collapse into its own footprint at free fall speed, identical to controlled demolitions - it would be a mangled and twisted - you only need to have a normal level of intelligence to come to this conclusion

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times

i don't appreciate you attempt to belittle me in your response as you've done no research at all in my opinion
 
any more proof on WTC being built to withstand multiple 747 strikes?

There isn't any proof of that for 747's, but rather the towers were built to withstand multiple 707 strikes. Lots of studies and white papers wrote about it in the 60's.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Still waiting for anybody to explain away the molten pools of lava at the bases for towers 1, 2 and 7 after the collapses.

i actually think you're clueless. don't think for a minute I'm bothered who thinks what about me and views on this thread. its you who need convince me to take you seriously - you've done no research into the structural monstrosity that were the world trade centre towers - 200'000 tonnes of steel and 780 million kg of concrete https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM would not collapse into its own footprint at free fall speed, identical to controlled demolitions - it would be a mangled and twisted - you only need to have a normal level of intelligence to come to this conclusion

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times

i don't appreciate you attempt to belittle me in your response as you've done no research at all in my opinion

Snap.
 
There isn't any proof of that for 747's, but rather the towers were built to withstand multiple 707 strikes. Lots of studies and white papers wrote about it in the 60's.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Still waiting for anybody to explain away the molten pools of lava at the bases for towers 1, 2 and 7 after the collapses.



Snap.

he said the initial analysis showed that it ought to withstand the impact of a 707. in the 60's. he then lets himself right down in the latter half of that article.
 
i actually think you're clueless. don't think for a minute I'm bothered who thinks what about me and views on this thread. its you who need convince me to take you seriously - you've done no research into the structural monstrosity that were the world trade centre towers - 200'000 tonnes of steel and 780 million kg of concrete https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM would not collapse into its own footprint at free fall speed, identical to controlled demolitions - it would be a mangled and twisted - you only need to have a normal level of intelligence to come to this conclusion

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times

i don't appreciate you attempt to belittle me in your response as you've done no research at all in my opinion

It didn't fall at free fall speed. Debris fell faster than the towers.

It didn't fall identical to a controlled explosion. Debris fell out to the side of the towers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top