It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Admits To Explosives Used at World Trade Center 9/11

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: TheChrome

If all your friends were there, where were you?


I worked for a prominent Wall Street Company, and I was in my home office, although had spent much time in WT2.

Also I had friends who are pilots, sitting on the tarmac at Newark Airport watching the whole thing. I have too many friends who watched, and or actually were in the towers. People who think there is a conspiracy, are well...just stupid.
edit on 14-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: TheChrome

If all your friends were there, where were you?


I worked for a prominent Wall Street Company, and I was in my home office, although had spent much time in WT2.

Also I had friends who are pilots, sitting on the tarmac at Newark Airport watching the whole thing. I have too many friends who watched, and or actually were in the towers. People who think there is a conspiracy, are well...just stupid.


So there couldnt be another story behind the towers comming down other than what the official story is because you had friends who died in this incident? Not getting your logic here.

People have the right to question the reality we are in.

Here are some things that people have wondered about for some time:
Building 7 fell for no reason
Pentagon had no plane wreckage
Towers fell likened to a demolition
Where was the other plane that fell?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

The other plane was shot down. Donald Rumsfeld told us years ago. Then they made some BS movie about the passenger's overwhelming the terrorists.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: TheChrome

If all your friends were there, where were you?


I worked for a prominent Wall Street Company, and I was in my home office, although had spent much time in WT2.

Also I had friends who are pilots, sitting on the tarmac at Newark Airport watching the whole thing. I have too many friends who watched, and or actually were in the towers. People who think there is a conspiracy, are well...just stupid.


So there couldnt be another story behind the towers comming down other than what the official story is because you had friends who died in this incident? Not getting your logic here.

People have the right to question the reality we are in.

Here are some things that people have wondered about for some time:
Building 7 fell for no reason
Pentagon had no plane wreckage
Towers fell likened to a demolition
Where was the other plane that fell?




My friends lived, and gave me accounts. When the airplane hit WT2, the building swayed 3 feet in each direction and folks were slammed into the railing of the stairwells. It has been shown that the construction method of the Towers was susceptible to heat. The massive heat from burning jet fuel, created a collapse from one floor to another.

My education is engineering, although I have worked in finance. The conclusions are accurate of how the towers fell by the jet fuel etc. The conspiracies are bulls#@&, and not based on facts or any engineering analysis.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

If you're telling the truth then I'm sorry for your losses. However, to say people who ask questions are stupid is a tad below the belt.

Motives? Plenty.

Serving personal interests? Plenty.

Human nature to do what works well for them? Plenty.

If it wasn't for the actions taken by the US and NATO after the attacks then I probably would have bought the official story. However, the injustice I have witnessed over the last decade supposedly in response to 9/11 has made me question everything.

If you don't see this then I suggest that you are the one that is stupid. With all due respect.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: TheChrome

If you're telling the truth then I'm sorry for your losses. However, to say people who ask questions are stupid is a tad below the belt.

Motives? Plenty.

Serving personal interests? Plenty.

Human nature to do what works well for them? Plenty.

If it wasn't for the actions taken by the US and NATO after the attacks then I probably would have bought the official story. However, the injustice I have witnessed over the last decade supposedly in response to 9/11 has made me question everything.

If you don't see this then I suggest that you are the one that is stupid. With all due respect.


What do the injustices have to do about the facts about 911? That makes no sense. I agree about injustices, but the facts are facts, and injustice doesn't create wacko theories of what can be factually proven otherwise!
edit on 14-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

I don't have wacko theories. I just want to know why 3 countries have been destabilised in response despite the fact that the alleged hijackers were Saudis.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: TheChrome

I don't have wacko theories. I just want to know why 3 countries have been destabilised in response despite the fact that the alleged hijackers were Saudis.


Well, don't quote me on it, but perhaps "But reports from the east and north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to annihilate many" (Daniel 11:44)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

Who is 'he' in your interpretation of that passage?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Bush was so famous for his gaffs there is even a name for them "Bushisms".

This ranges from things like "they missunderestimated me" to "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" and speaking on the war on terrorism he once also said that "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Honestly just look them up they make for good entertaining reading and I do believe this is just another of those Bushisms.

I have seen quite a few politicians making slip ups when speaking in public, it happens all the time so to me this is just one of those slip ups. He was talking about the planes, and said explosives. This does not in any way prove that he was secretly trying to tell us something or that he was wanting to get it all of his chest in a surreptitious way rather that Bush made yet another gaff speaking in public.

However this might not even be a Bushism, I think that context is very important, does not actually seem to be talking about 9/11 directly but rather other plans KSM had discussed. If you really look past 9/11 and think about what he is talking about, he is not actually talking about 9/11 so to say that he is admitting to the use of explosives during the attacks of 9/11 is really quite misleading.

Unfortunately there are a huge number of people now on the internet who have a serious case of confirmation bias when it comes to all of this and they see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear so long as it is consistent with their grand 9/11 was a false flag conspiracy. If they had just a modicum of critical thinking they would see just how utterly silly it is to believe that this was Bush admitting that explosives were used in the towers.
edit on 14-8-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: TheChrome

Who is 'he' in your interpretation of that passage?


The US/UK and their NATO allies



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

A very simple explanation is Bush was supposed to say "explosions" not explosives.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: scottyirnbru

I'm not sure to which reply you refer. Point the way...


Unknown thought I think the poster is called. The 10th post in this thread. Can't quote it on my phone. Honest matey, it's just up there.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
This thread is identical in spirit to all the rest. "Evidence" "proof" "busted". Followed by out of context quotes and youtube videos. Jurors are the arbiters of the law. They weigh the evidence and pass verdict. I think it's scary how many people here have such a low threshold for what counts as evidence. God help anyone in a jury trial with some ftom here as jurors.


Yeah nevermind what he said just ignore it tralala. . . .

Cmon you can even see his face change once he realises his gaff. . . .


Man's face changes = incontrovertible evidence? That's all you need? Please. Make sure you are never on a jury.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   
OK. I just watched the video in the OP.

The WTC was not mentioned at all.

He refers to planned attacks inside the US, derived from a source after the event.

The claim made in the thread title is a false premise.

From the ATS T&C

15l.) [HOAX]: In the event you Post more than three items that are later determined to be of an obviously hoax, fraudulent, or faked nature, your account may be terminated without warning.

OP. I suggest you review your posting style when it comes to headlines.

I would remind everybody involved here to read this

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Thread closed
edit on 14/8/15 by neformore because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join