Similarly, we are fed up with people concluding and repeating that, therefore, "Bush must have lied" when he said he saw the 1st WTC impact, on TV, before he entered the classroom, in a "nothing to see here, Citizen; just Bush lying again; move along!" kind of way.
So, to the first person who can show us any evidence which proves that it was impossible, and that, therefore, Bush was lying (or mistaken), we offer a reward of $500. This includes the web sites whatreallyhappened.com and cooperativeresearch.org, and journalist Jarrett Murphy of the Village Voice, among others, which have been promulgating this unfounded conclusion, despite a total lack of evidence, for a long time already - long enough for some people to have been brainwashed into believing the propaganda as somehow being true.
For the purposes of this reward offer, "TV" shall be defined as being able to watch any form of "moving images" received from somewhere else. This includes, but is not limited to, conventional NTSC broadcast video, as well as the government's Secure Video Teleconferencing System (SVTS) referred to in the 9-11 Commission Report; see #39 on page 558 (page 575 of the PDF file). (President Bush does not have an ordinary job. He did not say "ordinary TV".)
Please do not waste our time trying to argue that "outside the classroom" means "RIGHT outside the classroom" simply because that's what Bush fooled you into believing he meant. (We are confident that the Presidential limousine remained outside the classroom. Can anyone prove that Bush was not sitting in that supremely-well-connected limo when he saw it happen, before he entered [or even arrived at the school and] the classroom?)
We cannot, at this juncture, prove that Bush saw what he said he saw while in the limo. (Nor do we need to! The burden of proof that Bush could not have viewed any video of the event in the limo - or anywhere else - that morning is on those who claim to know for a fact that it was "impossible" for Bush to have seen it on "TV" before he entered the classroom.) When we asked DISA for supportive evidence, they did not rule out the possibility, but in denying our FOIA requestand our appealthey did rule it in.
So when some folks state, as if it was proven fact, that it was "impossible" for Bush to have seen what he said he saw, when he said he saw it, they act as if they can prove that Bush could not have seen it in the limo, as if they can prove a negative. But they can't! What they are doing is keeping people from ever honestly considering Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements, by repeating a Bush-neck-saving lie (in saying that it was "impossible" or "preposterous", or that Bush was "definitely just lying", or that his statements "must have been erroneous") over and over, without any basis in truth or reality, basing false logic on a false notion based upon gross distortions of what Bush actually said.
We reserve the right to amend (but only to help eliminate crackpot claims) or terminate this offer without notice. If the reward is successfully claimed, the proof will be published here immediately, thus ending the offer.
Meanwhile, please keep in mind that the best way to ensure that an incriminating statement can never incriminate anyone is to (mis)label it a lie.