WTC Attack - Conspiracy Theory

Just reading an article about some photos taken at the school Bush was visiting when the attack occured.
There are some obvious contradictions in his statements, time and clothing.

See here:

(Sorry, it’s German only but a rather reliable source.)

Not to mention the fact that he said he saw the first plane hitting the WTC live on TV - anyone else ever seen or heard about such live footage? Well, Bushi-Boy has:

"Anyway, I was sitting there, 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, or – anyway, I’m sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, “America is under attack.”

Since you guys like unbiased reports / links here something from the White House to proof the above statement: … 105-3.html

Any thoughts?

Where does it say live?

That tv footage was very confusing initially, hell I didn’t know how many planes or was it live or not when I turned it on first…

Oh My Godda

You mean Bush is Osama… no wonder they haven’t caught him yet

That explains a lot.

Errr… if you read the english bit at the end of the original link, you will see that it is perfectly possible for Bush to have seen the planes on TV… so, the link does not do what you think it does.

In addition, we have seen a lot of crazy stuff from French and German citizens (“reliable sources,” Pleeeaase!!) trying to suggest that there is a huge US conspiracy.

Arab terrorists crashed four planes in the US on September 11th, deliberately targetting and killing thousands of innocent civilians.

The US (and citizens of many other nations and of all creeds and cultures) were the victims.

Get over it. Point the finger at the culprits instead.

That’s why Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers were said to have come from, became (well, it kind of had been before already) one of the US’ best allies and Afghanistan was bombed instead…

It must have been live because he was at that school and he is clearly referring to the first plane in his statement.
The attack occured at the time he was in that classroom and left immediately after the 2nd plane crashed, so he cannot have it seen later in that school or confuse the two planes.
This is supported by the time shown on the clock in the background.
There are also contradictions in the location of the TV set, initially it was supposed to be in the hall way, on the picture it’s clearly in the classroom.

According to my knowledge there is no footage at all of the first plane, only the 2nd plane was filmed. So how come Bush claims to have seen the first plane hitting the tower?

Else please point me to a source where you can see the first plane (not pictures, but a capture from video footage which has been broadcasted).

That said I don’t think that there is such a conspiracy but rather a lot of unanswered questions. I mean which government would actually do such a thing!? Then again there have been cases where leaders / governments sacrificed their own for a ‘higher cause’ but I wouldn’t expect this from the US.

It seems that for every tragedy there will always be ‘finger-pointing’ and ‘damage-control cover-ass’ theories of who knew what, and plenty of ‘if we only we had …’


Silly response.

Saudi Arabia was not bombed because Al qaeda were not concentrated there. Targets in Afghanistan were bombed because the al Qaeda leadership and most of its troops and training grounds were concentrated there. The official government of Afghanistan, too, shielded them, so their infrastructure was bombed too and the regime was removed.

But is that not kind of obvious?

The US did not indescriminately bomb every Arab nation or invade Saudi just because many of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. Its targets were military, governmental and limited to those directly supporting and sustaining the al Qaeda organisation in its “homeland.”


Apparantly an Arabian taxi driver in Holland knew what was going to happen on the 11th of September 2001. He is know being detained and questioned.

Bush often makes blunders. This “first plane” theory you are cooking is bad.

Why don’t you harp on the “hole size” theory at the Pentagon.

Than one at least had me going for a while. :!:

It’s not my theory. I just find it interesting - if someone can explain it or proof it wrong I would be willing to listen.

Some of the theories are just interesting like in “fun” to read and I don’t take most of them seriously, but sometimes you do come across some facts which make me feel not all is as it seems or we are being told …

i already posted the link to the first plane that crashed into the wtc. in fact you also posted on that thread, rascal. it was the thread where juba argued back “well, that footage isn’t concrete, it could have been a small plane fill with explosives or a cruise missle”. …

the fact that you have to take the words of a renown bubbler when it comes to public speaking and then reinterpret and analyze them based on misinformed assumptions to support the theory shows how far this theory has to go before it can even approach plausibility.

[quote=“Rascal”]Going back to the plane crashes: I watched it live on TV (CNN) and surely they were two planes.

If I remember correctly the first plane was taped on the same footage as the fireman and that was IMHO a commercial airliner.

now i’m confused.


Nice work, Flipper…

Please keep the time line correct:

The footage with the fireman wasn’t broadcasted live (as nobody knew what was going to happen) but Bush claims he saw the first plane on TV before being told of the second one.
This cannot be possible as the footage was IMHO only shown later that day when we already had seen the 2nd plane crashing into the WTC.

What I said before (my statement you quoted) was perhaps not expressed correctly or maybe you have taken both sentences out of context: I did see the 2nd attack live as I switched on the TV just minutes after the broadcast started (alerted by the news in the radio of the first plane crash). As the broadcast was only started after the first attack I (and nobody else for that matter) could not have seen the first attack live but followed the program for several hours. Later the fireman video was shown, hence my statement / confirmation that there were videos of both planes (and not one video only as those conspiracy theorists initially claimed).

[quote=“Sharon Begley”][color=orange]SCIENCE JOURNAL[/color]
FROM THE ARCHIVES: September 13, 2002

Are All Your Memories
Of Sept. 11 Really True?

On the morning before this week’s heartbreaking anniversary, I waded into the crowds at Ground Zero to ask about their memories of Sept. 11.

Harold, a retiree from Lancaster, Calif., told me that he was awake early that day last year, watching “Today in L.A.” in bed “just as it happened.” He said he spent hours watching television that morning, riveted by images of the two planes striking the towers.

Bette (I’ll keep last names private), of Richmond, Va., had just gotten home from her overnight shift, she told me, when she turned on “Today” with her husband. She said they watched all morning as the networks reran video of the Boeings hitting the trade center.

These recollections are typical, but not in the way you may think. I can’t speak to where these visitors to Ground Zero were Sept. 11 and how they first heard, but their memory of what they saw is false.

“There was no video that day of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center,” notes psychologist Kathy Pezdek of Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, Calif., one of many researchers studying Sept. 11 memories . “Yet 76% of the New Yorkers we surveyed say they saw it then, as do 73% of people nationwide.”

A small point, perhaps, as MSNBC showed the first hit at 4:56 a.m., Sept. 12. But it is one of the disconcerting early findings of the memory studies. They confirm that even for an event woven into our synapses forever, memories are human constructs: They are amalgams of what we experienced, read and pieced together afterward, and what we would like to be true – not documentary records.

Seven weeks after the attacks, Dr. Pezdek and colleagues asked almost 700 people ranging from New York students to California firefighters 22 questions designed to assess their “event” memory : Which tower fell first?; and their “personal” memory : where were you when you heard?

A reigning theory of memory holds that the emotionality of an event enhances its memorability. But Dr. Pezdek found that although “New Yorkers’ and airline workers’ event memories were vivid and accurate, their personal memory wasn’t,” she says. “Many didn’t remember who told them, or who they were with.”

Perhaps, she speculates, emotionality is an either/or thing, enhancing the memorability of event memory or personal memory , depending on which is most important to the individual. For those directly affected by the attacks, like New Yorkers, the emotionality enhances the memorability of the event itself, while personal details are more of a jumble. Myself, I’m fuzzy on exactly when I finally made it home after working all night. But for others, such as Californians, the personal memory of being told is more emotion-laden, so they recall that better.

More distressing is how sure people are of their memories . “Those who say they saw video that morning of the north tower being hit were extremely confident in the accuracy of that memory ,” says Dr. Pezdek. “But just as when eyewitnesses testify in court, there is no correlation between confidence and accuracy.”

Researchers from nine universities are finding something similar. From Sept. 17 to 23, they asked some 1,500 people at eight U.S. sites and in Sweden for their memories , both event and personal, of Sept. 11. “In terms of content, people are surprisingly inaccurate,” says psychologist William Hirst of New School University in New York. They have false memories of the airlines and number of planes involved, for instance.

To test the accuracy of personal memories , the consortium asked the same people the same questions last month, before the intense media coverage started up again. The scientists are now comparing the answers to see if the “where were you” memories faded or changed. “We hope to see what kind of emotion – shock, fear, sadness and others – had the strongest effect,” says psychologist Liz Phelps of New York University, who helped put together the research consortium.

What is already clear is that, contrary to the notion of “flashbulb” memories as detailed, accurate mental images of a traumatic event, memories suffused with emotion are barely more likely to be true than memories of last Tuesday’s lunch. In at least some cases, “Traumatic memories are constructed, not veridical,” says Dr. Pezdek.

The Sept. 11 memory studies speak to larger issues, too. They confirm that eyewitness recall is fallible. Also, Dr. Hirst notes, voting decisions rest partly on memories – of a candidate’s behavior and record – that can be fiction. Finally, although memory lapse is something most of us (grudgingly) accept, fictitious memories are another matter. If what we think to be true about our experiences is instead false, are the very bases of our identity and our beliefs illusions?

Write to me at

Updated September 13, 2002[/quote]

The 10 Most Startling Speculations and “Conspiracy Theories” About September 11 and America’s New War

This web site details a number of inconsistencies in the reporting of the September 11 attacks. It doesn’t come up with a single conspiracy theory. It just suggests we are not being told the whole story…