911blogger.com — There is a completely overlooked report in the September 1, 2002 Tampa Tribune which strongly suggests an early coverup over how long President Bush remained in the Saratoga classroom after he received Andrew Card?s whispered message that the second tower had been hit.
Jul 7, 2007 View in Crawl 4
zmzmzmJul 7, 2007
The article of Bush at Booker has been deleted from the NY Post website. A search of the NY Post website reveals that they have on file articles by Malcolm Balfour written on Sept 11, 13, 14 and 15, 2001. Yet the article about Bush at Booker, that Balfour wrote on Sept 12, has mysteriously disappeared. The article can still be found at: <a class="user" href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/nypost091202.html">http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/nypost091202.html</a> I do not know how to verify that this is the original. Nevertheless, I was able to verify that the Post removed the Sept 12, 2001 article from their website. If this doesn't tell you that there is an orchestrated cover-up, I don't know what will. Check it out yourself. Go to the NY Post website and search for articles by Malcolm Balfour between Sept 11 and Sept 15, 2001 and you will see that the Sept 12 article has been removed.
showdown321Jul 7, 2007
You're looking for the wrong year zmzmzm. According to the website, the article was written on September 12, 2002. Switch to 2002 and you'll find it on NYpost.com. Be careful before posting statements like "If this doesn't tell you that there is an orchestrated cover-up, I don't know what will" That's the kind of stuff that a lot of 9/11 OCT supporters will take advantage of to try and discredit the truth movement as a whole. It's the kind of straw-man opportunity some people are dying to jump all over.
zmzmzmJul 7, 2007
Thanks Showdown. You are absolutely right. I looked at the wrong year. The full article is there --for $3.95. (I settled for the free abstract - having read the full article at the link in my post above).As for your comment about me being more careful -- you are right again. I was careless. However, for anyone trying to take advantage of my error as a "straw man opportunity," I would say that the fact that I am publicly admitting that I made an error in looking at the wrong year would cause any fair-minded person to just let it go - and not try to make hay out of an honest mistake being immediately admitted and corrected. What I am doing right now is the exact opposite of a cover-up. I am not making excuses and attempting to re-write history. I made a research error. It was called to my attention. I immediately admitted my error and I am taking responsibility for it. This is the way people in the truth movement tend to act. We do not try to worm and manipulate when we make a mistake. Thank you again showdown for pointing out my error. In fact, the spell checker on this site just found three spelling errors I made.
showdown321Jul 7, 2007
Right on.