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 there were explosives in WTC!

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
LeftBehind,
Do you have any other examples of terror attacks within the US that have involved buildings and planes? If so, then you're right, he may have been referring to that.




posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2

I thought the main idea of thius board was 'Deny Ignorance'

Your site is going downhill extremely fast.


I think that went out the window about a yr or so ago.

Sorry I have nothing to add to this topic except that part there...

So what if bush said there were explosives in the building, we already know that.. I really doubt that some terrorists blew themselves up to prevent escape of people.. I am also sure someone would have seen someone acting shady as hell around wtc at that time or before.

Anyway All we need to know is common sense and the fact that no steel structure ever fell due to 800c flames and some carpet and computers and whatever burning.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

But regardless of any of that, regardless of whether or not you agree with me that he is speaking about disrupted plots, I think we can all agree that he is not saying what is implied by the OP.

He is not admitting that explosives were in the WTC.

It is much too ambiguous for that.


After reading the whole thread....I'm a little behind in this news, I have to agree with you that it is ambiguous. But, I still also believe that that is what was implyed. I know for a fact that even speeches by ambassadors are written, re-written, edited, re-edited for several weeks before the actual speech. So, I would imagine that the President's speeches go through much more scrutiny.

So, the bottom line is....why would his speech even include this? I'm with others that it is a pre-emptive strike (Bush Co. loves their pre-emptive strikes don't they) to feel for what reaction would be.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
He does not specifically mention 9-11 in context with those quotes twitchy.

What he does specifically reference is disrupted terror attacks, that were stopped because he had information from his domestic spying program and CIA prisons.

This whole speech is a justification for the above programs.

So Rasibasi, it kind of makes it hard to say that it applies to any terror attack when he is talking about disrupted plots, and says for example these plots.

They never happened, which should make it clear why he can't be talking about 9-11 since it was not disrupted.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
NO, that's absolutely wrong.


The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.



What is the subject? The information that the central intelligence agency has obtained

Why is this subject important? It has helped disrupt terrorist plots.


For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.



An example of what? The information that the central intelligence agency has obtained

Why is this example important? It will help them disrupt terrorist plots.


He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.


What is this? The same subject: The information that the central intelligence agency has obtained

Not a disrupted terrorist plot, because that's not the subject. The subject is information the central intelligence agency has obtained.


He gave us information that helped uncover al-Qaida cells' efforts to obtain biological weapons.


What is this? This is what they did with some of the information that the central intelligence agency obtained. This is the first example of a disrupted terrorist activity.


We've also learned information from the CIA program that has helped stop other plots, including attacks on the U.S. Marine base in East Africa, our American consulate in Pakistan, or Britain's Heathrow Airport.


Why does he say other plots? Because they also uncovered al-Qaida cells' efforts to obtain biological weapons - the first example.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.


that passage says nothing about disrupted terror attacks. You are doing the same thing we are doing by taking paragraphs around it to justify what these two paragraphs refer too. You have a paragraph before that mentions disrupted attacks, and we have a paragraph before that mentions 9/11 and later KSM mentioned being behind 9/11.

either way it doesn't change the fact that those two paragraphs say NOTHING about a disrupted terror attack. further more the paragraph before talks about valuable information AND disrupted attacks. Not information leading to disrupted attacks, which you are implying.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Bush states a lot of things but he as a politician placed 911 and explosives in buildings in the same breath and interview. Could Bush be planting a false flag and could he again like in the plame affair speaking about classified information that really should not be released. If so why would the guy speak of such things, maybe he was not refering to placing explosives in the 911 towers. But after 5 years it has become apparent that is what did occur with new information surfacing each and everyday. Each new report shoots down the 911 commission report as a bag of bought traitors or foolish tools.

Here is my catch on the war on terror. Since the 1960s terrorism has been at our door and it has knock sometimes. But, why should we as americans pay a price that the terrorists should be paying, which is everytime we express ourselfs as free americans should we have to look over our shoulders at those we placed in office instead of the so called terrorist.

Bushs reference about stating explosives in buildings to keep people from escaping
and serveral stating that that could not be so because many got out, leaves out the what 3000 that died. If anyone can look up the windows of the world you will find that it was the computer systems that moved all the put options and trading for disaster tht happened to companies on 911. A young man who work there and witness many of the trading has a story to tell. Stop those people from getting out and to can protect the official story of 911.
9-11 Whistleblower Richard Andrew Grove (Transcript) - RINF Alternative News.htm
As we all continue to learn more about this topic, we start to comprehend the grandiosity of the thefts and fraudulent transactions that took place under the umbrella of 9-11- specifically hundreds of billions of dollars worth of gold bricks which were surreptitiously liberated from their safety deposit vaults under the World Trade Center. Couple that with the realization of the verifiably true statement made by Donald Rumsfeld on September 10th 2001- wherein he announced that $2.3 trillion dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds had been misappropriated by Pentagon accountants and “lost.
And perhaps you’re one of the few who I would not have to convince that 18 Militant Islamic Extremists with paper cutters had no control over NORAD’s planning of simultaneous exercises on 9-11, Guiliani’s participation in those exercises, or the Securacom & Kroll Associates Security experts who ordered the people in the South Tower to “return to their offices” in order to raise the death count.
In 2000 I worked for a software development entity called SilverStream Software. I worked in Sales- and in October of that year I won the largest client in company history, which soon thereafter led to the acquisition of SilverStream by Novell.

In contextual hindsight, and considering the audience, my Gordon Gekko was a client named Marsh & McLennan. Marsh is the world’s largest Insurance Brokerage. You might also recall that Marsh was located right below Cantor Fitzgerald in the North Tower, and approximately 295 Marsh employees were murdered that morning along with the other innocent victims and employees who either “knew too much”, or “too little” about their chosen work environment.
SilverStream had built internet transactional and trading platforms for Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Banker’s Trust, Alex Brown, Morgan Stanley; to name a few. I was responsible for these accounts at one time or another. Coincidently, several of these companies purchased space in the World Trade Center and simultaneously completed disaster-recovery and business continuance implementations just prior to 9-11.

Secondly, I would note that Stewart AFB, in New Windsor, New York is used as a hub for importation of illicit drugs, using our Military Assets as cover. Coincidently, Stewart happens to be the simultaneous crossing point of 2 hijacked airliners on 9-11, and also the approximate location of where the transponders were switched. Stewart AFB was previously known as the base where the Iran Hostages, were returned after 444 days and the October Surprise, this predated but is not unrelated to the Iran Contra fraud.
Hundreds of billions in fraudulent transactions took place just prior to the buildings being pulled down on 9-11- not including what I mentioned about Marsh and AIG previously- these transactions which capitalized on the destruction of fellow human beings were also in part facilitated by Marsh & McLennan. I know this because they were captured on hard-drives found in the rubble at Ground Zero… a German Company called Convar recovered the information on these drives.
As you might also be aware, Osama bin Laden was trained in the United States, by U.S. Intelligence Agencies, sponsored by U.S. Taxpayer dollars; but few are aware that his code name was Tim Ossman- OSSman; get it? And you see, there are quite a few of these twisted little side-jokes sewn into the fabric of this ongoing fraud.

I may have gotten off track but if bush can state explosives were used to keep people from excaping on 911 then there must be a reason other then just to kill, because even a cat will polay with its victim before its consumed.

So jsut why was explosives placed in the towers was it to keep people from escaping or too insure their silence.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
thank you valhall, you get my second WATS for saying what I have been much more clearly. That those two paragraphs have nothing to do with disrupted plots, but rather information they got from the guy. I had a whole post saying this, but I dont think anyone read it or it was very poorly written.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Yep, he damned sure did. And it's worth repeating...


He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.


Okay, so now that we have confirmation of this, we need to push to find out why the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission, including the NIST, has lied to us about this.


With all due respect, Valhall, isn't the answer to your question all over the place? Why wouls the government want to lie about its involvement in 911? Because Dubya and his gang would be friggin' OVERTHROWN if everybody knew!!!

... or at least this is what they're afraid of.

And also,well, lies is very efficient into putting the blame on other people.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Well, I understand your position. I just don't have the same position. pfffft

So when you take into account that I don't think the U.S. government did the attacks, it makes my question a little more logical. Here's my theory: They didn't want to let everybody know that their incompetence was so deep that the hijackers actually were able to plant bombs in the towers. That's my theory. They're trying to cover up for sheer incompetence.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Look, we can argue semantics all we want but it doesnt change the fact that the title of this thread is wrong.

Read it into whatever you like, but no where in that speech does Bush explicitly admit that there were explosives in WTC.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Jiminy H. Christmas!

10 pages of you arguing semantics and now you want to just drop it and go for the title?

Am I to take that as a disurpted terrorist attack, or just information that could lead to the capture of a new title?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
but no where in that speech does Bush explicitly admit that there were explosives in WTC.


I dont think hes dumb enough to say that. But is he dumb enough to slip up and say explosives, yea I think so. If they were a plane, why didnt he say "He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the PLANES HIT a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping." so we can rull out explosive=plane.

So if thats not the case, he is obviously talking about hardcore explosives. Now in why would you use explosive to trap people above...there must be some sort of threat in those levels or else whats the point of trapping them up there? Unless your planning on starving them to death.

So what was the threat? A fire. Granted I am explaining to you why he is justifying explosives in the building, not whether or not they demolished the building. If you have a fire caused by a impacted plane, you dont want people leaving the upper floors where the fire will eventually make its way up to. You need to keep the people up there while the building burns. blow up their exits, and there you go, they cannot leave those floors.

it makes perfect sense when you put the wtc in place with the building.


HOLD ON! one other thing. If they are interviewing him, and he is talking about a past plot, like the paragraphs in question, how could it have been a stopped terror attack? If they caught him, interrogated him, and he talked in past tense, it wasn't information that stopped a terrorist attack hes giving. Hes talking about something that already happened, that is valuable information. Follow me?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Bush doesnt say it specifically, but nothing is released in his speaches by accident.
He has now made the possibility of terrorists being inside the WTC with bomb laden vests a very real scenario.

Even though the amount of explosives they had dont explain the various pyroclastic flows,or the demolition of the building.
And of those nasty explosive ct's can be attributed to that possiblity.

Its just as unbeilevable odd, that they released the pentagon footage from the service station, which again proved NOTHING, accept the government has lied to us on various occasions since sept11

Stating there was NO FOOTAGE, yet we have since had 2 pieces released both of which supposidly show us proof of a plane hitting, and both which us nothing.

The government is starting to realise the public arent swolling this dung heaps as easily as they would of liked.

Those nasty ct's bush spoke about in his speaches years ago, have taken only 5 years of debating to have the government officially but there foot in it.

So where too now?
We know that freedom of information act can force the governments hand in releasing footage from the pentagon attacks, and we also now have the real possiblity of explosives being used in the wtc's.
How about flight 93? whats to come out about that ?

Bush is backpeddaling on his governments own assessment of the incident. The only reason on doing that is if they KNOW, what they spoke of isnt the truth.

Congratulations to all members of ATS, i beleive you constant barrage of resolve for the truth, various personal field work has contributed to this government releasing details after the fact, that show they havent been 100% honest.

They are definately watching this site.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
grim,

The reason you would want to trap them is that you have planted explosives to make the towers fall. They were planning in a manner that ensured maximum loss of life. Fortunately, they didn't pull that part of it off.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
in other words, hes not giving them information on a terror plot to disrupt when hes telling them about the planes hitting the building and the explosives, because hes talking in past tense. The operatives had already been given the orders on how to carry it out. It says how the operatives WERE directed to carry them out. Honestly, there is no way that they stopped a terror plot of this scale, obviously in its final stages, and said nothing. its way too big a political chip to give up, no way.

now, its the other plot that doesnt mention how the information helped uncover the plot in progress. to me thats evidence enough that it was a plot that had already happened. How many plots, in its final stages, or complete, included a plane hitting a building with KSM ordering the attack? I know one that comes to mind, since the article says it.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
grim,

The reason you would want to trap them is that you have planted explosives to make the towers fall. They were planning in a manner that ensured maximum loss of life. Fortunately, they didn't pull that part of it off.


I am talking how the official story is going to spin it.
planes hit the tower, so they were hoping the fire would climb up the building and kill all above. the explosives needed to be there to stop the people from having an effective way of getting out of the fire. These explosives were planted around the floors where the planes hit, which actually helped the levels collapse. The fire didnt bring it down alone, suicide bombers, intending to trap the people above, actually caused the structure to be compromised. All of these factors lead to the collapse of the floors. And whos going to argue that an explosive on a suicide bomber didnt help the collapse? We dont know how much explosive he had, we just know he was there to help the collapse unintentionally.


thats how the official story will spin it, as I garenteed before.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Grimreaper, I believe you are bang on target there with your summation. Something else I'd like to add to the mix here is this recent news report on Bush "tells Group he sees a Third Awakening" - and I don't think he's strictly talking about pure religious belief. He realises America are finally waking up, and the damage control is required to go into full swing - or he is sunk! Going to be watching with interest to see how this develops.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by zren
There were reports of 'explosions' 'huge explosions' 'bombs going off' 'knocked to the floor' etc.

Except people are talking about explosions far below the impact zone of the planes as well
and things were not 'greatly heated' there.


And you're going to know it's a bomb how? An explosion will have the same characteristics as a bomb going off. Shockwave, shaking, knocking people down, etc. And why does a "huge explosion" mean that it was either? I've heard huge explosions that were nothing more than a transformer. A spectacular one, but that was all. As for things going off below the impact zone, we KNOW that some of the fuel went down elevator shafts into the lower levels, and it was either A. on fire, or B. extremely hot and near the flashpoint when it did.

di
good try but a transformer blowing in a building the size of the WTC towers thats on fire, has tons of people running around with screaming and whatnot,. the noise of that transformer blowing isnt gonna reach all the diff areas that people were in who reported it...not to mention people outside the building with sirens and huge crowds going off....not gonna fly that excuse.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by zren
www.guardian.co.uk...


For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on
building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is
valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the
American people.

He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went
off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

Watch Video (realplayer)


Are we now slowly gonna get fed through the media al-Ciada miraculously was able
to place explosives in the buildings? Give me a break LOL!

B-U-L-L-S-H-T

[edit on 16-9-2006 by zren]


Not to start a flame war, but this quote appears to be assuming he said the explosives were in the building. This in fact, wasn't said.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join