News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**

draqon said:
they showed his face in the classroom...and how do we know he was told about 911 at that time? For all we know he could have been told that his two daughters got into yet another drinking accident. :rolleyes:

and that lame phrase " you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist..." gives it away that these are conspiracy theorists.

LAME LAME LAME
Click to expand...

Not sure why your trying to defend Bush on this issue, he clearly states he watched the first plane hit the building on t.v. when there was no footage of the first plane hitting the towers until the next day.
But whatever bro, we disagree:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc&mode=related&search=
 
The White House is in on the lie?

Re: YouTube "Bush Fumbles in his Lies About 9/11"

Just a note on one of the discussions taking place:

Moementum7: I love how Bush gets caught with his pants down when asked about prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks...lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK1Y8eB6vRs

Draqon: its not his own voice. watch the lips

Moementum7: Ok, I watched his lips...didn't see anything unusual ..., I think even more revealing is his body language.

Draqon: riiight... it is so obvious that it is not his own voice... 00:28...it is apparent!​

You know, part of me can't believe I even bothered:

Q I know you said there will be a time for politics. But you've also said you wanted to change the tone in Washington. Howard Dean recently seemed to muse aloud whether you had advance knowledge of 9/11. Do you agree or disagree with the RNC that this kind of rhetoric borders on political hate speech?

THE PRESIDENT: There's time for politics. There's time for politics, and I -- it's an absurd insinuation.

(WhiteHouse.gov)
Click to expand...

Anyway, I don't blame anyone for not having gone out to dig up the transcript of Bush's December, 2003 news conference. It took me a whole two and a half minutes. It still would have been a tough forty seconds if I hadn't been searching the wrong phrase.

Actually, having gotten that off my chest, it's more fair to say that I don't blame anyone for not having pulled up the transcript because this particular footage is one of those that is generally stamped into the public mind. It's not like "fool me once", but more like "now watch this drive". It's just a bad moment for the president that is fairly well known. I think that between the YouTube phenomenon and the blogosphere, it will be very difficult to fake Bush news footage. It's not that someone won't try, but "that's fake" is one of those arguments that should come with some sort of debunking reference. Whether the politics of denial or expedience, we should be careful about rushing to debunk as fake something so visible and critically studied as Bush's public-speaking problems and apparent lack of integrity.

Having said that, I do wonder why the question was so unsettling for the president.
_____________________

Notes:

WhiteHouse.gov. "President Bush Holds Press Conference". December 15, 2003. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031215-3.html​
 
moementum7 said:
No, it's time for you to respond or post something of merit.
I'm waiting.
Click to expand...

I already obliterated your nonsense about WTC7 and the Towers. You still haven't illustrated anything convincing about the actual incident, so it stands that you've stipulated to my points. I asked for proof about the NORAD thing and the rest, which is still forthcoming apparently.

Tiassa said:
Congratulations to all those who think they've won something or another in this topic. At this time I would like to reiterate in a more general context that the 9/11 Truth movement doesn't seem to be much about truth itself, but rather the egotism of its players.
Click to expand...

True.

Ganymede said:
Geoff sitll can't handle that he lost the debate heh? To bad I can't see what he's saying. Im' sure it's more conjecture and no science.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: When Gany posts some science, I'll eat my hat.

Geoff knows he lost the debate that's we he can't stop posting in this absurd thread as he calls it. I'll guarantee you 20 more posts from Geoff.
Click to expand...

Oh, more than that. I promise as many as it takes.

He just can't take it that he lost. And more Americans believe a coverup then the official story. And that just boils his blood. He has no poll to support his theory that the Government is telling the truth. Isn't that sad?
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad popularum. Gany's done. He wasn't much of a contributor anyway, though. And I hear his music sucked.

Checkmate! LOL

:D
 
Tiassa said:
Re: YouTube "Bush Fumbles in his Lies About 9/11"

Just a note on one of the discussions taking place:

Moementum7: I love how Bush gets caught with his pants down when asked about prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks...lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK1Y8eB6vRs

Draqon: its not his own voice. watch the lips

Moementum7: Ok, I watched his lips...didn't see anything unusual ..., I think even more revealing is his body language.

Draqon: riiight... it is so obvious that it is not his own voice... 00:28...it is apparent!​

You know, part of me can't believe I even bothered:



Anyway, I don't blame anyone for not having gone out to dig up the transcript of Bush's December, 2003 news conference. It took me a whole two and a half minutes. It still would have been a tough forty seconds if I hadn't been searching the wrong phrase.

Actually, having gotten that off my chest, it's more fair to say that I don't blame anyone for not having pulled up the transcript because this particular footage is one of those that is generally stamped into the public mind. It's not like "fool me once", but more like "now watch this drive". It's just a bad moment for the president that is fairly well known. I think that between the YouTube phenomenon and the blogosphere, it will be very difficult to fake Bush news footage. It's not that someone won't try, but "that's fake" is one of those arguments that should come with some sort of debunking reference. Whether the politics of denial or expedience, we should be careful about rushing to debunk as fake something so visible and critically studied as Bush's public-speaking problems and apparent lack of integrity.

Having said that, I do wonder why the question was so unsettling for the president.
_____________________

Notes:

WhiteHouse.gov. "President Bush Holds Press Conference". December 15, 2003. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031215-3.html​
Click to expand...

Your like a breath of fresh air.
Balanced perspective seems so rare on open forums.
 
Last edited:
hey hey ok ok...so he did say something...poor Bush have been tired and got lost in things of what to say. He just said something he didn't mean to think of saying. I mean it happens.
 
So lets compare the Madrid Fire to the WTC7 Fire.

Here's what CNN says about the Madrid Fire in Spain.

Emergency crews at the scene said firefighters were waiting for the temperature inside the building to drop, which they said would lessen the danger of collapse.

At their peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 Fahrenheit), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid's firefighters.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/14/spain.block.fire/


Here's a quote from the Governments Investigative body the N.I.S.T

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.

Ok, you've heard it here. The N.I.S.T has just stated, that the steel didn't melt. However, here's what the ground Zero Workers told ED Bradley from CBS news. 1:34 Seconds listen to what the Ground Zero Workers say

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fh9TsTWITzA

The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

You heard it, a Jet fuel fire Burns at 1100 degree's. Now why did we still have fires at the base of ground zero still burning 3 weeks later at 1100 degrees?

However, the N.I.S.T spokesman on the Video just said there was no molten steel at Ground Zero

But hear what that Fire Fighters who were there say.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&hl=en

So who do you believe? The same Government that told you Iraq had WMD's, That Pat Tilman was killed by enemy fire, that Jessica Lynch went down in a blaze of glory!

Or the these hard working fire fighters who gain nothing from lying. Like you Government apoligist say. There's to many people involved for there to be a conspiracy. But when the people involved contradict the Governments Conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs defeated the US military AIR defenses, you apologists still don't believe them.

Checkmate
 
Last edited:
Ganymede said:
So lets compare the Madrid Fire to the WTC7 Fire.

"Emergency crews at the scene said firefighters were waiting for the temperature inside the building to drop, which they said would lessen the danger of collapse.

At their peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 Fahrenheit), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid's firefighters."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/14/spain.block.fire/
Click to expand...

First, check out the bolded part above. Now why do you suppose they thought the temperature dropping would have decreased the chance of collapse? Wouldn't have anything to do with the structural strength of steel changing, would it? :D

Ahem: Checkmate!

Second: the building is tiny compared to the Towers, or to WTC7 - in which the fire was on the 4th-7th floors, which is on the bottom of the building, meaning the load was massive above it. In the Madrid fire, the fire is in the upper third, which means little load above it, and even then you can see that they were afraid of a collapse. In the Towers fires, the load was about a third above but had the tiny proviso of having been hit by a speeding 171 ton aircraft.

It's really extraordinary that you pretend that one can go from building fire to building fire, pretending that all buildings are built the same way. Astounding. Could one do the same for all shipwrecks, say? All bridge collapses? Roadway slides? Absurd.

Now let's take a look at the rest of the CNN report - the part Gany chose not to post:

The office tower was heavily damaged but did not collapse as feared.

"The situation is still critical," Madrid Mayor Alberto Ruiz-Gallardon told The Associated Press.

Officials say the building is unstable and have closed the area surrounding it, in a move that could affect several thousand employees in the city's financial district.

Cars will be routed to neighboring streets, subway lines under or near the damaged building will remain shut down, and adjacent office towers will remain closed by order of the mayor, AP reported.

El Corte Ingles, Spain's signature department store, remained closed Monday and told its 2,000 employees to stay home.

"What worries us now is its structural state because of the high temperatures it was subjected to," Merardo Tudelo, director of the Madrid Municipal Firefighters, told reporters shortly before 9 p.m. Sunday (2000 GMT).

By Sunday evening, flames were no longer visible, though gray smoke and ash stoked by gusts of wind continued to pour from the blackened shell of the building.

Hours earlier, several top floors collapsed onto lower ones. Firefighter official Fernando Munilla expressed concern that the entire building -- which at about 106 meters (350 feet) high is among the 10 tallest in Madrid -- could collapse.

"If the partial collapses keep happening, it would be lying to say it's impossible that the whole building couldn't fall down," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/14/spain.block.fire/
Click to expand...

So - partial collapses. Major structural damage. In other words - changes in the structural strength of the steel supports. I think that about wraps up the Madrid case report.

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.

Ok, you've heard it here. The N.I.S.T has just stated, that the steel didn't melt. However, here's what the ground Zero Workers told ED Bradley from CBS news.
Click to expand...

:shrug: NIST was wrong. Since you're a fan of comparisons, a steel bridge melted from a mere gasoline fire about three or four months back. How was that possible, when steel only melts at 2700C? I think you also forget that the building was packed with other materials for burning - paper, wood, carpet, and all the other trappings of a modern office building, over several floors. Local variance in fire intensity may have been more than enough, frankly. If you're going to argue thermite, you should probably appreciate how much thermite would be required.

Or the these hard working fire fighters who gain nothing from lying. Like you Government apoligist say. There's to many people involved for there to be a conspiracy. But when the people involved [What "people involved"? - Geoff] contradict the Governments Conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs defeated the US military AIR defenses, you apologists still don't believe them.
Click to expand...

They didn't "defeat" US air defenses, they exploited a massive gap in civilian air control. What was it, 3500 different radar signals to sort through? And the transponder off?

As I said above:

Checkmate!
 
Ok ladies and Gentleman. I guess no one could provide any links to dispute the fact that molten steel was present at Ground Zero! Lets recap the updisputed facts.

1) The NIST lied about the presence of Molten Steel.

2) The NIST said Kerosense Fires don't burn hot enough to melt steel.

3) The Firefighters and Groundzero workers publicy stated that Molten steel was present. And the fires continued to burn for 3 weeks after 911.

This along with a plethora of other undisputed facts proves that the conspiracy theorists have won hands down. I have a link to back up every claim I'm making. I'm not interested in anyones opinion who can't offer a source to back it up. Now that I've proved that the NIST is fraud. Along with the entire official story.


Checkmate
 
Michael said:
Also, these New Reporters are picked for their ability to parrot information, NOT actually give an educated opinion.
Click to expand...

1 of the stations here gets actors & pretty faces to read their lines, no news here

they end with, "thats the end of our show"
 
Not really: it just illustrates that NIST was wrong. The other facts - the plane impacts, the critical loss of steel structural strength at >500 C, the islamic terrorist connection, the transformers and diesel fuel on the 5th floor of WTC7 - are really not impeachable. They complete violate the Troofers' positions. So...

Checkmate!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top