I think my second explanation is the most probable, namely, that what he saw before entering the classroom was live coverage of the second airplane appearing to hit the first building.
On looking at the video linked in that post, that may have been the first view I saw of the second airplane when I was watching the coverage that day. I think I didn't see the footage that was taken of it from other angles until later.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When trying to reconcile conflicts in the reported facts, the best explanation is the one that does not strain credibility.
My explanation has two problems:
1. Although the live coverage I believe he saw was shot from an angle that makes it look like an airplane is crashing into the first building, it also shows that the building was already on fire.
2. One of the timelines on the Web has President Bush inside the classroom from 9:02 am until approximately 9:25 am, whereas the second plane is reported to have hit at 9:03 am.
In order for my explanation to work, it is necessary to assume the following:
1. That in the few minutes between the time when he saw a plane hit and the time someone whispered in his ear inside the classroom, the president didn't realize the implications of the fact that the building was already on fire before the plane hit. Note that in the White House link you provided, the president is quoted as saying that he was whisked off to the classroom and didn't have much time to think about it before his chief of staff told him it was an attack.
2. That he actually entered the classroom after 9:03 am, not 9:02. It's not hard to believe that someone's watch was off by a couple of minutes, or that someone simply misreported the time by that much.
Neither of the above two assumptions strains credibility.
The "CIA feed" explanation has a lot more problems:
1. All of the people involved in setting it up would have to have been keeping quiet about alleged treasonous behavior on the part of the president. Considering what happened to President Clinton over something far less serious than treason, that alone strains credibility.
2. This was in a public school, so setting up the feed would have had a severe risk of discovery. If what he saw was a regular television, getting a CIA feed to it would have been non-trivial, raising the likelihood of witnesses seeing evidence of it. If they had set up a satellite dish, brought in the cable from outside, unplugged the school's cable from the TV, and plugged in their own, members of the public would have seen it. If they switched the feed at the cable company, employees of the cable company would have seen it, and the same signal would have been seen not only all over the school, but by all of the cable company's subscribers, raising the likelihood of being discovered. Of course, they could have encoded it on a special channel, but then they would have had to make sure there was a decoder box installed on the individual television set. They also would have had to confirm ahead of time that there would be a TV in the room where the president would be waiting, and that it was connected to cable rather than an antenna. No matter how they could have done it, there would have been a severe risk of discovery, and for what? A photo op? Give me a break.
3. If you want to postulate that he was watching a wireless Palm-type device and not a TV, then you need to find witnesses to this fact. Remember, this was in a PUBLIC shool. They would have had to set up a transmitter somewhere, and if he was not watching a TV, you have to deal with the fact that he said it was a TV. So the theory then becomes that they somehow covered up the preparations perfectly, but he's out there in public taking the risk of telling people it was a TV when it was wasn't, which is something that could be EASILY checked.
4. If the alleged motive was to have a photo op, the elaborate preparations and the high risk of discovery would have served no purpose. It would be much less risky to simply not have the video feed and just tell people, "this is when I found out it was an attack." Without the TV in the waiting area, no one would have had reason to question it.
5. In setting this up, they would have needed to know when the second plane would hit in order to be consistent with his finding out about it while he was in the classroom. I am a pilot, and I can tell you that predicting the time of reaching a destination requires training, careful planning, and calculations. Given that the winds aloft data are forecasts and not actual observations, and that they give the same forecast for a twelve hour period, guaranteeing an accurate arrival time is nearly impossible. The airlines have very highly trained pilots, and even they can't guarantee on-time performance. The 9/11 planes were being flown by people who barely had enough training to steer them into a target, let alone guarantee an arrival time.
In summary, the "CIA feed" explanation requires unreasonable assumptions that strain credibility, whereas my explanation does not.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
