For the people who havent seen this short video...

[steevo]

...here it is again. Show this to all your friends where you feel it's appropriate and save it to your hard drive :-

Evidence that George W. Bush had advanced knowledge of 9-11 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw)

I like the bit at the end where his body language (hands) indicate his guilt :D

[steevo]

And here is a different version of that incident :-

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60)

[steevo]

And this is the video where Bush gets quizzed about it :-

Bush on 9/11- Amazing answer, just see the face of Bush. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FTrdFWHxk)

[steevo]

I showed a few people these videos tonight. It's hard for anyone to argue against this evidence but they still try :rolleyes:: but nevertheless the seeds have been planted :D.

[steevo]

By the way, posts 1 and 2 on this thread have similar videos in them but they are actually different because Bush says pretty much the same thing in both of them but they are said on separarte occasions. So that means that he said the same thing TWICE!

[lightgiver]

...here it is again. Show this to all your friends where you feel it's appropriate and save it to your hard drive :-

Evidence that George W. Bush had advanced knowledge of 9-11 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw)

I like the bit at the end where his body language (hands) indicate his guilt :D

yep,one big lie,and you can tell with his voice in the 1st part he is lying:eek:

and that body language;)

i cannot believe some people still do not get it:confused:

[tracker]

I showed a few people these videos tonight. It's hard for anyone to argue against this evidence but they still try :rolleyes:: but nevertheless the seeds have been planted :D.

anyone can tell he is lieing .

how blatent can it be before people understand that 9/11 is an inside job ?

some folks just dont learn .:cool:

[steevo]

Bush says that stupid line "there's one TERRIBLE pilot. It must have been a horrible accident". You can tell when someone is lying when they say stupid things like that. Bush thought that by publicly denying that he had even CONSIDERED the first plane crash to be terrorism that it would somehow disconnect him from the incident in the eyes of the public (in other words he was putting on an act when he said it, and when you put on an act, then there are tell tale signs - you say stupid things that a truthful person would not say).
Most people would instantly suspect (at least) that the first plane crash was a terrorist attack, but the President didnt think so even though the threat of a terrorist attack using planes had already been discussed by the PTB.

Also, a person telling the truth doesnt NEED to act or to try to justify himself by saying "the TV was obviously on".

[lightgiver]

Bush says that stupid line "there's one TERRIBLE pilot. It must have been a horrible accident". You can tell when someone is lying when they say stupid things like that. Bush thought that by publicly denying that he had even CONSIDERED the first plane crash to be terrorism that it would somehow disconnect him from the incident in the eyes of the public (in other words he was putting on an act when he said it, and when you put on an act, then there are tell tale signs - you say stupid things that a truthful person would not say).
Most people would instantly suspect (at least) that the first plane crash was a terrorist attack, but the President didnt think so even though the threat of a terrorist attack using planes had already been discussed by the PTB.

Also, a person telling the truth doesnt NEED to act or to try to justify himself by saying "the TV was obviously on".



"The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands..."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 180-181.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
Adolf Hitler

"The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down."

[infin8_possibility]

...here it is again. Show this to all your friends where you feel it's appropriate and save it to your hard drive :-

Evidence that George W. Bush had advanced knowledge of 9-11 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw)

I like the bit at the end where his body language (hands) indicate his guilt :D

The title to that video is mis-leading. It only proves he lied, not that he had prior knowledge.

[steevo]

The title to that video is mis-leading. It only proves he lied, not that he had prior knowledge.

Then why was Bush watching the FIRST PLANE hit the tower live on tv if he didnt know it was gonna happen ?

What are you saying that he lied about infin8 ?

I'm sort of confused by your comment :confused:

[infin8_possibility]

Then why was Bush watching the FIRST PLANE hit the tower live on tv if he didnt know it was gonna happen ?

What are you saying that he lied about infin8 ?

I'm sort of confused by your comment :confused:

Because when the attack happened he was in a classroom full of kids. He couldnt of seen the first plane hit because no TV coverage showed this till the day after, thus he was lying.

[steevo]

Because when the attack happened he was in a classroom full of kids. He couldnt of seen the first plane hit because no TV coverage showed this till the day after, thus he was lying.

Wow you really are confused. But I admit that IS a possibility lol :D

[lightgiver]

Because when the attack happened he was in a classroom full of kids. He couldnt of seen the first plane hit because no TV coverage showed this till the day after, thus he was lying.

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

He says on the vid he saw the 1st plane hit the tower,because the tv was on?

what,pointed at the towers:confused:yeah right:D

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60


http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=6JATcBFbvcI

bush is just a lackey following orders,thats how it works these days.

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.

[infin8_possibility]

Wow you really are confused. But I admit that IS a possibility lol :D

OK now I am confused lol. But explain why you think Im confused...

[infin8_possibility]

And how do you know he "watched the first plane hit before he joined the classroom".

Even Bush would probably of known the media would rip him apart if he was wittingly sitting in a classroom full of kids just prior of finding out of the attack.:confused:

[steevo]

OK now I am confused lol. But explain why you think Im confused...

I havent got time for this cos it's a waste of my time. I will agree to disagree with you on this. Believe what you want I dont care.

[steevo]

infin8_possibility were you just playing devils advocate there ?
If people say that Bush was lying that he saw the first plane hit then let then. You can then ask them questions like what motive would he have to lie. Anyway, I have never had anyone say that they thought he was lying about seeing the first plane hit.

The point is that the seed has been planted and you have communicated your thoughts on the matter. The seed that you have planted in their heads cannot be forgotten and it WILL grow sooner or later.

But those videos are excellent in that they show that SOMETHING is wrong, and it's REAL evidence that Bush had prior knowledge. If they want 100% proof, you cannot give it. We can only provide EVIDENCE that could be used in a court of law. EVEN if we had a video of Bush ADMITTING that he was involved in the 911 attacks, then a "Skeptic" could still say that BUSH is lying, but a jury would see it differently.

[infin8_possibility]

infin8_possibility were you just playing devils advocate there ?
If people say that Bush was lying that he saw the first plane hit then let then. You can then ask them questions like what motive would he have to lie. Anyway, I have never had anyone say that they thought he was lying about seeing the first plane hit.

The point is that the seed has been planted and you have communicated your thoughts on the matter. The seed that you have planted in their heads cannot be forgotten and it WILL grow sooner or later.

But those videos are excellent in that they show that SOMETHING is wrong, and it's REAL evidence that Bush had prior knowledge. If they want 100% proof, you cannot give it. We can only provide EVIDENCE that could be used in a court of law. EVEN if we had a video of Bush ADMITTING that he was involved in the 911 attacks, then a "Skeptic" could still say that BUSH is lying, but a jury would see it differently.


Yes i was playing devils advocate (taking the skeptics angle on it). The reason I said "he lied" was that he couldnt of possibly seen the MSM video cuz it didnt exist till the following day.

But you say he saw it happen, thats just what confuesd me thats all.

[steevo]

Yes i was playing devils advocate (taking the skeptics angle on it). The reason I said "he lied" was that he couldnt of possibly seen the MSM video cuz it didnt exist till the following day.

But you say he saw it happen, thats just what confuesd me thats all.

Yes the video came out the next day. So he must have watched a DIFFERENT video unless that specific video (that we have all seen) was beamed live to a tv that Bush just happened to be watching.

[steevo]

And how do you know he "watched the first plane hit before he joined the classroom".

Even Bush would probably of known the media would rip him apart if he was wittingly sitting in a classroom full of kids just prior of finding out of the attack.:confused:


Bush says in the video that he watched the FIRST PLANE hit prior to walking into the classroom.

[infin8_possibility]

Bush says in the video that he watched the FIRST PLANE hit prior to walking into the classroom.

He says in that video "when we walked into the classroom there was a TV set on and we saw....."

[steevo]

He says in that video "when we walked into the classroom there was a TV set on and we saw....."

Your quote isnt quite right. Please watch that video again and get the quote bang on right this time. Also, please watch the 2nd video in this thread where he makes it more clearer.

[infin8_possibility]

hmmm first vid he says along the lines of "when we walked in to the classroom we saw..." the second vid he say "i was sitting outside the classroom and saw..."

I was never disagreeing with you steevo, obviously IM aware he had prior knowledge. I was just coming in from the angle of a sheeple...

[steevo]

hmmm first vid he says along the lines of "when we walked in to the classroom we saw..." the second vid he say "i was sitting outside the classroom and saw..."

I was never disagreeing with you steevo, obviously IM aware he had prior knowledge. I was just coming in from the angle of a sheeple...

ok no problem infin8 :)
I still say that that first quote isnt quite right what you wrote down.

[infin8_possibility]

ok no problem infin8 :)
I still say that that first quote isnt quite right what you wrote down.

ok man here is the EXACT quote from the first video :)

"...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 errr I thought it was pilot error..."

Peace.

[steevo]

ok man here is the EXACT quote from the first video :)

"...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 errr I thought it was pilot error..."

Peace.

Thanks for re-quoting that Infin8, it saved me a job ;):D

[the nine]

Yes the video came out the next day. So he must have watched a DIFFERENT video unless that specific video (that we have all seen) was beamed live to a tv that Bush just happened to be watching.

maybe the 5 dancing Isrealies were broadcasting directly to G W Bush, via the secret service, they were dancing because they acheived their goal of capturing the first plane hitting the tower on video and were then going to receive a huge bonus from the terrorists...maybe..

it would explain his actions reciting the said event, but with clouded memories of the lie he told with slight variations.

[lightgiver]

maybe the 5 dancing Isrealies were broadcasting directly to G W Bush, via the secret service, they were dancing because they acheived their goal of capturing the first plane hitting the tower on video and were then going to receive a huge bonus from the terrorists...maybe..

it would explain his actions reciting the said event, but with clouded memories of the lie he told with slight variations.

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU;)

1 vid posted here.

[mynameis]

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU;)

1 vid posted here.

If there are no planes, what are they filming? /sarcasm. ;)

[lightgiver]

If there are no planes, what are they filming? /sarcasm. ;)

Holographic images show planes:rolleyes:sarcasm:D or maybe filming the explosions,maybe they got the timining wrong as well.

Look mynamis i am not saying there was no planes,i am stating we should keep an open mind,after this technology does exists, it could have been remote control planes,who knows,none of us will know until there as been a proper, real and open investigation,but one thing is for sure we all agree 911 was an inside job.Until we know the real truth we should keep all avenues open,because some of the official reports and footage from 911 is well debatable,and the 911 commission report is a pack of lies.

Come on you really think bush and his masters give a shit about people:confused:
in the words of nick rockerfella we are serfs,why do you care for them,look after your own family.

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

[mynameis]

Holographic images show planes:rolleyes:sarcasm:D or maybe filming the explosions,maybe they got the timining wrong as well.

Look mynamis i am not saying there was no planes,i am stating we should keep an open mind,after this technology does exists, it could have been remote control planes,who knows,none of us will know until there as been a proper, real and open investigation,but one thing is for sure we all agree 911 was an inside job.Until we know the real truth we should keep all avenues open,because some of the official reports and footage from 911 is well debatable,and the 911 commission report is a pack of lies.

Come on you really think bush and his masters give a shit about people:confused:
in the words of nick rockerfella we are serfs,why do you care for them,look after your own family.

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Holographic technology of the methodology or the scale of 911 doesn't exist. My mind is open to the possibility that this technology does not exist in 2000 or 2001 or 2002 or 2003 or 2004....so I'm not saying that i won't ever exist as some suggest it has.

[lightgiver]

Holographic technology of the methodology or the scale of 911 doesn't exist. My mind is open to the possibility that this technology does not exist in 2000 or 2001 or 2002 or 2003 or 2004....so I'm not saying that i won't ever exist as some suggest it has.

How do you know it does not exist:confused::confused:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=-k5nt541SE0

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ToFAigW_Fro

2 videos posted,do you think they would tell us of their technology:DLOL:D

[mynameis]

How do you know it does not exist:confused::confused:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=-k5nt541SE0

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ToFAigW_Fro

2 videos posted,do you think they would tell us of their technology:DLOL:D

I'm not going to argue about it with you I've studied it. Don't take my word for it show me a system capable of capable of projecting light into the air as show there at the WTC which would have light would passing through, and not reflected off said projection in the air; said projected object would not be visible for 360 degrees; what technological system is capable of creating a display image of that magnitude, and gives it the appearance of a high speed aircraft etc..?

[lightgiver]

I'm not going to argue about it with you I've studied it. Don't take my word for it show me a system capable of capable of projecting light into the air as show there would been light would passing through, and not reflected off said projection in the air; said projected object would not be visible for 360 degrees; what technological system is capable of creating a display image of that magnitude, and gives it the appearance of a high speed aircraft etc..?

Like i say you are not an expert,and you just make assumptions that you know it all,wisdom is knowing how little we do know:rolleyes:sarcasm:D

seeing is not always believing.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0110336/

http://resources.yesican-science.ca/lpdd/g06/activities_gr6/seeingbelievingtg.html

Illusion of Magic: David Copperfield Makes Plane Disappear:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=8NfoAHH6sTQ

[mynameis]

Like i say you are not an expert,and you just make assumptions that you know it all,wisdom is knowing how little we do know:rolleyes:sarcasm:D

These are not assumptions cousin. Prove your claim that's what I'm asking you. You must full fill all those aspects as I just tried to tell you about before setting up a system such as the one you think would have projected a hologram on 9/11. I'm asking you to show me the technology you claim exists on this kind of scale and all you can do is roll eyes and scream sarcasm. This is how scientific method thinking starts, hypothesis, observation, test, comparative results. Occam's razor is the best and only way to evaluate certain evidence and you aren't using it at all.

[lightgiver]

These are not assumptions cousin. Prove your claim that's what I'm asking you. You must full fill all those aspects as I just tried to tell you about before setting up a system such as the one you think would have projected a hologram on 9/11. I'm asking you to show me the technology you claim exists on this kind of scale and all you can do is roll eyes and scream sarcasm. This is how scientific method thinking starts, hypothesis, observation, test, comparative results. Occam's razor is the best and only way to evaluate certain evidence and you aren't using it at all.

Like i say i prefer common sense,something you do not seem to have.

Things should be made simple not simpler,i could prove a lot of occams razor theory wrong but that will just end up in another meaningless debate,its on google though:DLOL:D

am i your cousin:confused:and you are the one who started with the sarcasm comments my niece.


"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

An airplane illusion: apparent velocity determined by apparent distance.
Hershenson M, Samuels SM.

Department of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254, USA.

When a small drone plane appears to be a normal-sized airplane, it appears to be very far away and moving too fast. This is the airplane illusion. In the illusory situation, familiar size determines the apparent size and distance of the plane. It sets the depth for the frontal-plane component of the perceived motion and the relative depth difference for the motion-in-depth component. Because these perceived distances are very large, the perceived velocities are very large in the respective directions. Cognition can override familiarity and produce a veridical perception of the drone.

[mynameis]

Like i say i prefer common sense,something you do not seem to have.

Things should be made simple not simpler,

It's not a crime to love being stupid either... /sarcasm

[lightgiver]

Occam’s Razor

As an independent researcher with little at stake in any particular theory, it has been relatively easy for me to follow the NPT evidence where it leads. I have joined the No Planes group because it seems to me most in conformity with Occam’s Razor, the least complex theory that accounts for the available data.

Over and above scores of non-passenger plane related 9/11 anomalies, the NPT seems to provide a common sense explanation for many of the unanswered questions and inconsistencies. For example, the NPT explains:

1. why government BTS records show that two of the four planes never took off that day and two others were not decommissioned until four years later.
2. why the government has refused (or been unable) to present "a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration," and why there is no confirmed debris of any of the alleged four planes, so that all of them have disappeared without a trace;
3. why the passenger lists are phony; why no Arabic names are on any of the passenger lists; and why there are remarkably few alleged plane victims’ families requesting compensation
4. why several of the purported hijackers have turned up alive and why the government apparently felt it necessary to produce such unpersuasive evidence as hijacker passports, training manuals, etc.
5. why in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the government claimed that there were terror cells operating in at least 40 states but hasn’t produced even one untainted terror cell in the last five years.
6. why there is no reliable video of the Pentagon and the NYC Twin Tower attacks. In the case of the Pentagon video released by the government first as photo stills and then as video, no plane is in evidence; nor would it be possible for a big passenger jet to come in at ground level at high speed.
7. why there was no air cover in NYC or in Washington, D.C. until after the Pentagon attack at 9:37. If there were no hijacked planes there would have been no need for interceptions.
8. why there are no credible witnesses to ANY of the alleged four planes.
9. why the authorities destroyed the tapes of the flight controllers’ recollections of the events of that day. Those tapes might contain evidence that flights 11 and 77 did not take off that day and that 175 and 93 did not crash.
10. why ALL the cell phone calls were fabricated including the iconic "Let’s Roll," call as well as the Ted Olson-Barbara Olson exchange

http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

some one else using occams theory;)

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/shadowlands/6583/project068.html

http://records.viu.ca/~SOULES/MEDIA112/zine2000/covert/page3.htm

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/06/holographic.television/

[mynameis]

Occam’s Razor

As an independent researcher with little at stake in any particular theory, it has been relatively easy for me to follow the NPT evidence where it leads. I have joined the No Planes group because it seems to me most in conformity with Occam’s Razor, the least complex theory that accounts for the available data.

Over and above scores of non-passenger plane related 9/11 anomalies, the NPT seems to provide a common sense explanation for many of the unanswered questions and inconsistencies. For example, the NPT explains:

1. why government BTS records show that two of the four planes never took off that day and two others were not decommissioned until four years later.
2. why the government has refused (or been unable) to present "a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration," and why there is no confirmed debris of any of the alleged four planes, so that all of them have disappeared without a trace;
3. why the passenger lists are phony; why no Arabic names are on any of the passenger lists; and why there are remarkably few alleged plane victims’ families requesting compensation
4. why several of the purported hijackers have turned up alive and why the government apparently felt it necessary to produce such unpersuasive evidence as hijacker passports, training manuals, etc.
5. why in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the government claimed that there were terror cells operating in at least 40 states but hasn’t produced even one untainted terror cell in the last five years.
6. why there is no reliable video of the Pentagon and the NYC Twin Tower attacks. In the case of the Pentagon video released by the government first as photo stills and then as video, no plane is in evidence; nor would it be possible for a big passenger jet to come in at ground level at high speed.
7. why there was no air cover in NYC or in Washington, D.C. until after the Pentagon attack at 9:37. If there were no hijacked planes there would have been no need for interceptions.
8. why there are no credible witnesses to ANY of the alleged four planes.
9. why the authorities destroyed the tapes of the flight controllers’ recollections of the events of that day. Those tapes might contain evidence that flights 11 and 77 did not take off that day and that 175 and 93 did not crash.
10. why ALL the cell phone calls were fabricated including the iconic "Let’s Roll," call as well as the Ted Olson-Barbara Olson exchange

http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

some one else using occams theory;)

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/shadowlands/6583/project068.html

http://records.viu.ca/~SOULES/MEDIA112/zine2000/covert/page3.htm

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/06/holographic.television/

Good now apply that to holograms on September 11th and tell us oh wise and powerless lightgiver what apparatus projected the hologram at such a scale without a surface to project upon; and tell us oh wise and powerful lightgiver how did the bars of steel bend inwards in each WTC plane shaped hole.

[lightgiver]

Good now apply that to holograms on September 11th and tell us oh wise and powerless lightgiver what apparatus projected the hologram at such a scale without a surface to project upon; and tell us oh wise and powerful lightgiver how did the bars of steel bend inwards in each WTC plane shaped hole.

I have put enough info on the links with my posts:Dtake a peak if you can be bothered.

[mynameis]

I have put enough info on the links with my posts:Dtake a peak if you can be bothered.

Holographic emitters for those kinds of devices by logic and reason suggest they are too small to function as in the scale of your suggested scenario about 9/11, nor is there an available surface to project them upon, and other technical problems. You're right I can't be bothered because you haven't posted anything conclusive.

[lightgiver]

Holographic emitters for those kinds of devices by logic and reason suggest they are too small to function as in the scale of your suggested scenario about 9/11, nor is there an available surface to project them upon, and other technical problems. You're right I can't be bothered because you haven't posted anything conclusive.


yeah,whatever.night night.

http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/6195/hologramxj0.gif (http://imageshack.us)


Airborne Holographic Projector

Brief Description
The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.

Capabilities
Precision projection of 3-D visual images into a selected area
Supports PSYOP and strategic deception management
Provides deception and cloaking against optical sensors

Enabling Technologies (MCTL)

4.1.4, Image Processing (holographic displays)
10.1, Lasers
10.2, Optics
10.3, Power Systems

Ben Rich, former head engineer to Kelly Johnson at Lockheed's 'Skunk Works' :

"We have things in the Nevada desert that you and the best minds in the world

won't even be able to conceive that we have for 30 or 40 years,

and won't be made public for another 50."


"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/2nd-hit/fooled-again-911.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/2nd-hit.html&h=299&w=444&sz=12&hl=en&start=56&um=1&usg=__Xfuzgx7kmi4gqBiyLT1UkdryoHU=&tbnid=tUGhiHW_pHHEBM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhelicopter%2Bon%2B911%2Bwith%2Bprojec tion%2Bscreen%26start%3D40%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26 hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN

[steevo]

Funny how virtually every 911 thread ends up in an argument about whether there were planes or no planes :cool: Coincidence ?