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: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by a1ex

Is your government looking for your best interest?
or is the government looking afer it's own best interest?...(which is not your best interest.)..unless you're related




You know, some people would say its in the government's best intrest to act in our best interest. There's kindoff that whole voting thing that senators, representative, and president's are always so worried about.
[Mod Edit] The word "explosive" in that speech was vague, but it obviously refers back to the airplane, since, although not designed to, it was purposefully exploded (by the way, Webster Online's definition of explosive is

"1 a : relating to, characterized by, or operated by explosion b : resulting from or as if from an explosion
2 a : tending to explode") and was used as an explosive, in every definition of the word


Ok, I'm going to bed now, anyone who wants to continue [Mod Edit] I really don't care. Good Night.



[Mod Edit: Insults removed. Please take a minute to read the following: **POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ** Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 17/9/06 by JAK]




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
READ THE 911 COMMISSION REPORT.

Further to that, you do not say "operatives had been instructed" when you are talking about nothing but plans that did not get carried out. If you plan something and then don't carry it out, then you never get to the point you "instruct the operatives". You just plan, and then don't do anything.

There have been no failed plans to fly planes into buildings that KSM was involved in, so it wasn't a failed operation he was referring to.

KSM was involved in one plan with planes flying into buildings...and the operatives of that plan had been instructed to ensure the explosives were set at a height in the building to prevent occupants above that point from escaping.


Val, up to this point i agree with EVERYTHING youve said, but linguistically, speaking of things that have not yet happened, or will NEVER happen, it still makes perfect sense to say that "so-and-so had been instructed to do something" with an understood "but never did or never will get the chance to at all" as an inherent part of the sentence.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by alphabetaone]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
I've lost count of how many times I've used this eyewitness report of explosions in WTC2 but here it is again.

Eric Levine





We had reached either the 51st or the 50th floor when we heard a huge explosion, which shook the building like crazy!...

Then the building began to sink. That’s the only way I can describe it. The floor began to lower under my feet


What point are you trying to make here uknumpty?

This guy began evacuating his tower (tower 2) after tower 1 had been struck.

The explosion he heard/felt was obviously the plane striking tower 2.

And his statement goes to show that eyewitnesses sometimes cannot be trusted to make accurate recollections of incidents observed under stress.

"The floor began to lower under my feet" ???

"The building began to sink" ???

We all know that did not happen.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   
The way the towers went down looked like it was a controlled demolition. What I am saying is they way they collapsed is how buildings collapse when explosives are put in place for a controlled demolition.

When I lived in the states for a short while; I actually got to watch a controlled demolition on telly. The way the towers collapsed was exactly the way the building collapsed with controlled explosives.

Also, on another thread there is a video clip produced by an independant witness that was within 500 yards of the tower. In it you see what appearrs to be an explosion in the left hand corner and she says something about a military plane being caught up in it.

For Bush to come out and say that there were eplosives in the tower then you have to question why were they there and who put them there?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
The firefighters were put under a gag order and all film that anyone had was confiscated by the government....

Also, many of the people being treated for lung and other ailments from the debris of 911, have been reported as having signs of exposure to high levels of radiation, such as that received from nuclear devices.


Can you please provide your sources for these statements?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
P.S. - Jet fuel burns at about 700 degrees. The WTC towers were built to withstand up to 3,000 degrees.


Please provide your source for these statistics.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
I think the NIST has been quoted in one of their recent F.A.Qs to say the jet fuel (for the WTC) reached 1800 Degrees Fahrenheit respectively, and that's roughly the max jet fuel I believe can burn in a closed system/perfect fuel air ratio.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Ok, I have not read the entire thread, but it seems things are being swung off topic somewhat. I would just like to understand exactly where people have gotten the notion that G. Bush is talking about the WTC. Notice that there is no mention of the WTC in relation to his comment about drawing information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

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.


Note the either poor gramatical transcript or speech itself in regards to the word building, but also note that the word 'building' is used and not WTC.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
so what your telling me is that after such a mind blowing event, even in the eyes of the planner who didnt expect such results, they were going to put explosives in the building as well?

after 9/11 I dont see what the point of putting explosives along with the airliner would be, unless 9/11 had explosives to begin with. If there were no explosives in the WTC then I dont think the second wave would include explosives, ESPECIALLY since it is know this guy hated complexity. He wanted things as simple as possible, so why would he make the plot more complicated, when he had results like the WTC collapse (assuming only airliners caused the collapse)


I don't know if you were talking to me when you said "so what your telling me", but I just wanted to clarify that I'm not actually trying to tell you anything other than the information I found. lol I just want to make sure we have all the information. And there apparently was a "second wave" of plane in building attacks that KSM appears to have been involved in.

You make a good point, but the first thing that comes to mind on why they might modify the plan is that, in actuality, when you take into account the potential occupancy of the towers on a work day, they didn't get all that big of a deathtoll on 9/11. Let's face it, most of the occupants got out. So, I guess, if you were a hell-bent-for-leather terrorist wanting to kill as many people as possible, you might modify the plan to make sure no one can leave the building.

As I stated before when some one said Bush's statement didn't make sense about "ensuring the explosives were set off at a high enough level" to prevent those above them from escaping, YES, that makes perfect sense if KSM was trying (in his mind) to IMPROVE the Youssef 1993 bombing of WTC. Because in 1993 the bombs were in the parking garage basement level and didn't affect the egress of the occupants of the building. So "high enough" could mean nothing more than the first floor above the last floor with egress.

[edit on 9-17-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Modulus


Note the either poor gramatical transcript or speech itself in regards to the word building, but also note that the word 'building' is used and not WTC.


That's not what he said. The Guardian transcript is in error there. He said


For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on buildings inside the U.S.


The video of the speech is linked in the first post of this thread if you want to verify that yourself.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Well I might be one of the few people that agree with leftbehind, but to me the quotes are being taken out of context and Bush was not referring to the twin towers when he mentioned explosives. He's an evil little gnome that doesn't get out of bed without an ulterior motive, but in this case I think it was about supporting his illegal surveillance and torture programs, not admitting there were explosives in the WTC buildings.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Well I might be one of the few people that agree with leftbehind, but to me the quotes are being taken out of context and Bush was not referring to the twin towers when he mentioned explosives. He's an evil little gnome that doesn't get out of bed without an ulterior motive, but in this case I think it was about supporting his illegal surveillance and torture programs, not admitting there were explosives in the WTC buildings.



my...

I don't think anybody in this thread has stated that his ulterior motive was to admit there were explosives in the WTC buildings. That's what I kept trying to point out to LeftBehind. Yeah, the speech (in its entirety) is to promote the reasons for him to smack prisoners around and bug our phones, BUT, during his talking points as to why he needs to do that he has made a statement that could imply that explosives were planted in the buildings hit on 9/11. THAT's been the point. With the finding of the 2002 plot on the Library Tower, that now makes this more complicated as the statement could apply to that plot, and not the 9/11 plot.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Where in that news article does it say Bush says there were explosives? It just says some other guy says it. Please explain someone!



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Granted his overall topic was for supprting the illegal surveillence. But with all the hoopla about whether or not the WTC buildings were rigged with explosives...you would think that the word "explosives" and "buildings".. together in the same sentence would be something that the writers and Bush himself would avoid ever using anywhere near the same sentence. Especially in the vague way they did.

But if he is not talking about WTC... then just what foiled plot is he talking about?
Thats the question I am left with; If I go with the assumption that he is NOT talking about WTC. Just some random foiled plot that the public doesnt know about? Is he talking about the "foiled" plot in London? where most of the people "involved" have been released? If he is not talking about WTC, then just what IS he talking about?

If he is talking about WTC...well I think Valhall has more than illustrated a possible connection, so I wont elaborate anymore on this one.


My question is: Just what foiled plot IS GWB talking about in that statement?(for those that say he is NOT talking about WTC)



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
LOL... Val gave a good possible answer before I even got to finish asking the question...




original quote by: Valhall
THAT's been the point. With the finding of the 2002 plot on the Library Tower, that now makes this more complicated as the statement could apply to that plot, and not the 9/11 plot.


Yes .....doh!!@... the 2002 library tower plot...(smacks himself in the forehead)

That is a definate possibility.... except they didnt capture KSM until 2003...so...hmmm...what do you make of that Val?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Well, I'm glad some one else pointed that out, and I didn't have to. I make of it this:

That plot wasn't thwarted because of information obtained from KSM interrogations. So IF the Library Tower plot is what he was referring to, LeftBehind's argument that this is a litany of thwarted plots based on information from KSM goes out the window.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, I'm glad some one else pointed that out, and I didn't have to. I make of it this:

That plot wasn't thwarted because of information obtained from KSM interrogations. So IF the Library Tower plot is what he was referring to, LeftBehind's argument that this is a litany of thwarted plots based on information from KSM goes out the window.


it definately starts to poke some holes in the arguement...unless, someone can come up with another foiled plot....(post 2003 capture).



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23

My question is: Just what foiled plot IS GWB talking about in that statement?(for those that say he is NOT talking about WTC)


It could just be a referrence to operational procedures they've learned from KSM, not a specific target. For instance, if they plan to target a skyscraper with explosives, their tactic is to trap the people on the upper floors where they can't be easily rescued. That would create more panic and thus more terror. That's important information for protecting buildings, knowing that terrorists would be trying to gain access to the upper floors. Just my thoughts.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
In this article, it refers to an East Coast attack planned for "mid-2003".

www.washingtonpost.com...


The three plots targeting U.S. territory included the well-known case of Jose Padilla, who was arrested after he allegedly explored a possible radiological "dirty bomb" attack, and two plans to use hijacked planes to attack the West Coast in mid-2002 and the East Coast in mid-2003. The White House document gave no further details about the timing or targets of the latter two.


That could be a plane in building plot that they could have learned of through KSM interrogations. Because I believe he was captured in March of that year.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   
you are correct March 1.

After reading that Article you just posted Val.. I would have to conclude that this could very well be what he was talking about.

That being the case I would also have to conclude that he is NOT talking about WTC in that statement.

*edit early morning typos...


[edit on 9/17/2006 by TONE23]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join