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.

 

Trump on 9/11 states that bombs must have been used in addition to planes.

page: 1
16

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
This is the same interview in which Trump speaks about his tower being the tallest after the WTC's collapse.

But this part of the interview seems to have been missed or overlooked.

The commentator, Alan Marcus, presents the question at 5:25.

He asks Trump what he thinks caused the ultimate destruction of the buildings and suggests "bombs" as one of the options.

At 6:42 and 7:15, Trump says that he believes that there were bombs that exploded simultaneously with the plane, that it must have been more than just fuel...

I dont think this necessarily makes Trump a "Truther", which would be a plus IMO.

I just think that Trump, like many people, felt that planes alone could not have brought down those buildings.




edit on 9-10-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording




posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Even the MSN was reporting that bombs were used on 911, I also read somewhere that plastic explosive particles were found in the dust samples afterwards.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
eh, nvm
edit on 9-10-2016 by waftist because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Good find. Also thanks for giving the times in the video that he said that.

I wonder if he now still has the same views about bombs being used.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Yeah a lot of the firefighters who were there think so too.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
This is the same interview in which Trump speaks about his tower being the tallest after the WTC's collapse.

But this part of the interview seems to have been missed or overlooked.

The commentator, Alan Marcus, presents the question at 5:25.

He asks Trump what he thinks caused the ultimate destruction of the buildings and suggests "bombs" as one of the options.

At 6:42 and 7:15, Trump says that he believes that there were bombs that exploded simultaneously with the plane, that it must have been more than just fuel...

I dont think this necessarily makes Trump a "Truther", which would be a plus IMO.

I just think that Trump, like many people, felt that planes alone could not have brought down those buildings.





Many people do think that way, and they did at the time, nor was it specific to what Trump was saying, since the anchorman himself makes the same suggestion in speaking to Trump.
However, Trump is referring to the planes themselves also containing bombs, he says, "bombing planes" and that is a bit harder to quantify as to what he may have meant, (as to what did happen) if he even knew what that may or may not entail.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

What concerns me about Trump taking these stands much like this thread on him bringing forth Clinton's accusers., is that all that will happen is the media will white wash it as though Trump is simply a radical conspiracy theorist.

Discrediting the information further to the sheep who choose to believe it with their adoration for their servitude summed up in the coming election of Clinton.

Just my theory, I fear the inevitable outcome of Hillary being president and the hell she is going to unleash, with the coming civil war and the implementation of all those pleasant executive orders.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
It's ironic how all that sweet 9/11 money that Senator Hillary got her hands on went right down the toilet, like everything else she touches.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: gladtobehere

What concerns me about Trump taking these stands much like this thread on him bringing forth Clinton's accusers.[/url], is that all that will happen is the media will white wash it as though Trump is simply a radical conspiracy theorist.



He mentioned Wikileaks by name TWICE at tonight's 2nd debate.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox


He mentioned Wikileaks by name TWICE at tonight's 2nd debate.


In what kind of capacity?

Honestly I am praying that Wikileaks has some kind of revelation on 9/11 that will force the rest of the world to hold America responsible for its wars of aggression based on a false flag.

I say the world because my faith in Americans is at an all time low!


edit on America/ChicagoSundayAmerica/Chicago10America/Chicago1031pmSunday9 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
He said to go look it up at Wikileaks, concerning email deletion and another topic. Ill post the details if I can think of it.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
He said to go look it up at Wikileaks, concerning email deletion and another topic. Ill post the details if I can think of it.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Hopefully, now that the Saudi cat is out of the bag,
Trump will highlight how much money the Clinton's
have pocked from Saudi Arabia, along with how
Clinton her self is exposed in the Podesta Wikileaks
to have named the Saudi's as the being on the forefront
of extremist ideals, even claiming they are the biggest
export of these extreme ideals!

While she still takes money from them!



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Is that Trump the Structural Engineer


Didn't think so



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I don't know. Both buildings were down at that time, and he kept talking about the steel and about the structure of the buildings as if they had no central core but were upheld only by the perimeter steel.

He sounded to me as if he was aiding the official story.

In other words he only spoke about the lateral damage, but not to the entire destruction of the building itself which was implied in the question.

Said it looked like a can of soup.

Then he talked about how the country and everything had changed.

Has he ever questioned the cause of the destruction of the buildings as being anything other than the plane impacts?

He seemed to be running with the marching orders inherent in the rendering of the event as a type of self-censoring.

I don't see him suggesting for a moment that explosives and not the plane impacts, brought down the buildings.

I also noticed a lack of concern, or horror, about it.

It was the same thing with L. Paul Bremer who lost all his colleagues that day but was lucky enough to have missed a board meeting, and who, after having his commercial plane diverted and landed, went on air to promulgate the official story about the destruction of the buldings, but without showing so much as an ounce of sadness, sorrow or shock at the fact that it was his offices in the North Tower that were hit and all his friends and colleague, killed or most of them anyway.

He of course went on to become the Interim governor of Iraq with armed trucks loaded up with a billion dollars in US cash driving around, but that's another story I guess.

edit on 10-10-2016 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16

log in

join