• @Zippy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It is a legitimate statement but hardly news worthy. He visited shortly after the towers collapsed. The article also quotes other incidents where his statements were not accurate but for the most part true. I wouldn’t call it intentional misleading for political clout although it is a bit weird to make statements that are easily disapproved.

    • ThunderingJerboa
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Yeah its not a great look but at the same time, human memory is a very fickle thing. There is a reason I’m all for dashcams and the such since eye witnesses are worthless and can easily be primed to see what others want them to see. Maybe he is doing it for clout but lets be honest here I doubt most people would remember exact dates/times of something that happened 22 years ago. Hell I legit can’t remember anything I did 15 years ago, its all sort of a blur.

      • @Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        I was talking more about some of the other things he has said in past as stated in the full article. The ground zero statement in the title alone is a non story. I agree It was 22 years ago and he was there shortly after. Certainly nothing worth making any point of and a few days after is more or less immediately after the incident.