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: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I decided to review the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission Report to get the interrogation dates of KSM, just so we'd have them for reference on this topic. Okay, he was captured first of March, 2003, and here are the interrogation dates listed:

March 24, 2003
March 27, 2003
April 4, 2003
April 12, 2003
April 17,2003
May 3, 2003
May 8, 2003
May 10, 2003
May 15, 2003
May 19, 2003
May 27, 2003
May 30, 2003
June 3, 2003
June 9, 2003
June 24, 2003
June 27, 2003
June 30, 2003
July 1, 2003
July 2, 2003
July 3, 2003
July 8, 2003
June 11, 2003
July 12, 2003
July 14, 2003
July 15, 2003
July 23, 2003
July 24, 2003
July 25, 2003
July 29, 2003
July 30, 2003
July 31, 2003
August 6, 2003
August 14, 2003
August 18, 2003
August 20, 2003
September 5, 2003
September 9, 2003
September 11, 2003
September 12, 2003
September 26, 2003
October 15, 2003
October 21, 2003
October 27, 2003
October 31, 2003
November 6, 2003
November 10, 2003
November 12, 2003
November 13, 2003
November 19, 2003
November 21, 2003
November 26, 2003
January 7, 2004
January 9, 2004
January 14, 2004
February 17, 2004
February 18, 2004
February 19, 2004
February 20, 2004
February 21, 2004
February 23, 2004
February 24, 2004
March 20, 2004
March 31, 2004
April 2, 2004
April 3, 2004
April 4, 2004
April 5, 2004
April 13, 2004
April 30, 2004
May 21, 2004
May 25, 2004
June 15, 2004
July 16, 2004

Including these dates:

March 12, 2002 - footnote 148 for chapter 7
October 31, 2002 - footnote 153 " "
August 13, 2002 - footnote 165 " "

??? ?

When I hit the first one I thought it was just a typo, but then when I hit three of them, it got weird.

i.a.cnn.net...




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
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?


I believe he might be refering to plans for attacks on high rise dwellings in Chicago and LA.


Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.
www.washtimes.com...

Also I think he might be refering to Feb. 2003, when:

JOHN ASHCROFT: Recent reporting indicates an increased likelihood that al-Qaida may attempt to attack Americans in the United States and/or abroad, in or around the end of the Hajj, a Muslim religious period ending mid- February 2003. Recent intelligence reports suggest that al-Qaida leaders have emphasized planning for attacks on apartment buildings, hotels and other soft or lightly secured targets in the United States.


www.pbs.org...

I distinctly remember hearing or seeing on a TV show the exact same thing of terrorists planning a possible attack on a medium to large sized apartment tower by renting a apartment in the middle of the building and planting explosives in that apartment to explode, hopefully trapping the people above till the building fell. Letters were sent out to apartment dwellers in some cities during Feb. 2003 asking them to be extra vigilant and report any suspiscious behavior. I don't think there was a specific target just a mode of carrying out the attack.

To be honest, those who are saying Bush said there were explosives planted in the WTC are hearing what they want to hear. He refered to "buildings" not buildings in New York or the WTC's. There have been other plots to crash planes and plant explosives in buildings, not necessarily doing both to one building.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Right, pavil, but that's not what he referred to. He referred to a plot containing both.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
great job finding the list of dates Val...


Anything else that needs to be added?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Right, pavil, but that's not what he referred to. He referred to a plot containing both.


That's the part that I think is a misconception. As I read the speech, he's listing items of intelligence gained from KSM. They appear to be seperate items, like bullet points in a presentation. They don't necessarily relate to each other directly.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:08 AM
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.


Well, I don't see a segway to a new topic there.

I do here, though.


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


But those first statements are all tied together. Of course, we're also talking about a man who has two times talked about watching the first plane fly into the first building on September 11th, when there was no footage for him to view the first plane flying into the first building, so I am being disingenuous in not taking into account the mental illness factor that could be playing into this speech.

Sorry, I'll do better next time.

Hey, TONE23, what do you make of the three interrogation dates for KSM that pre-date his capture. Do you think they were all just typos?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Tone23,

Don't answer that here. I'm going to start another thread on that topic so that I don't get this thread off kilter.



[edit on 9-17-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Here is a three part video series regarding the lie about planes bringing down the towers. Each segment is 30 min. long and worth watching.

video.google.com...

video.google.com...

video.google.com...

There are recovered steel beams shown in these videos that were “bowed” as if receiving the pressure of a blast, as opposed to being “buckled”, which is what happens when the metal begins to melt under extreme heat. The fires in the buildings were, according to the NY Fire Department at the time, “isolated”. There was not enough heat to bring down both complexes. You can hear the voice recordings of the firefighters saying to use two hoses(?).

Also mentioned on these videos is that Marvin P. Bush, W’s younger brother, was principal at Securacom/Stratesec, the company responsible for electronics security at the WTC, Dulles Airport and United Airlines from 1993-2000. The Bush bros' cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, was CEO of Securacom/Stratesec until 2002. Dulles airport and United Airlines were both involved in these attacks. Under Marvin Bush, a “new security system” was installed in the towers.

On a weekend prior to 911 both WTC buildings were completely shut down; blacked out, at which time there was no security. At this time, “workers” were seen entering with large tool boxes. Employees were told that internet cables were being upgraded. This was an unprecedented event, and done on short notice, which caused banking companies, etc., inside scrambling to prepare for the total blackout.

Employees notified authorities and 911 commission after this catastrophe of the strange security blackout, and the frequent evacuations at the towers just prior to 911, but have thus far been ignored. Five days prior to 911 bomb sniffing dogs that had been involved in security at the buildings were inexplicably removed.

I know from other cursory research, that these buildings were considered virtually condemned with regard to their age and health concerns. Just about 6 months prior to 911, Larry Silverstein purchased the world trade centers, which hadn’t changed ownership in 33 years. The first thing larry did was to hire Securacom to provide the new security for the complex. Larry’s downpayment for the $3.2 billion WTC was $124 million. He immediately insured the buildings for $7 billion, and covered them against “terrorist attacks”. 6 Months later Larry filed insurance claims after the event and was paid out $4.6 billion.

We don’t really need to talk about how or why they collapsed anymore, do we? They are a dead body. Proceed with the murder investigation. You have a homicide (WTC bombing), the body shows signs of “explosion damage” (controlled colapse, bowed steel, etc.), which means someone would have had to have access to the body to place explosives. Who had access? This limits the suspects. Who would have a motive/who benefits? Follow the money. This should limit your investigation even more. How did hundreds of millions of dollars make it out of the buildings, and if it left before this event, then why? The primaries involved are not only associated - they are family. If Jeb Bush comes up for election in 2008 would you be surprised? Is this a crime family?

Why the f**k are we putting this case together and not the fu**ing 911 commission?! I have no experience as a trial lawyer, but there is enough motive and opportunity here to build a case. There is obvious collusion and at the least, culpability here. Is this rocket science? I get this from 48 Hours- the tv show! That’s right. No law degree, just free time after work where I get to sit on my a** and watch tv…oh, as a part time distraction I also unravel governmental plots to manipulate world affairs to their twisted ends. Yesterday I built a bird house...

[edit on 17-9-2006 by OnTheDeck]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
OntheDeck,

I want to correct one statement you made about columns that were found bowed versus buckled etc.

Your statement is incorrect. If a column failed due to overload during the collapse (i.e. from overload due to collapsing load on top of that floor) it would be bowed.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
/

Originally posted by Valhall.
Right, pavil, but that's not what he referred to. He referred to a plot containing both.


What if the actual text of the press conference intro speech referred to "explosions" rather than "explosives"? Would we still be having this discussion?

Everyone can read into the statement what they like but I think he is refering either to seperate events or he is referring to the planes exlploding high enough into the buildings. I lean towards the latter and either way it doesn't explicty refer to the attacks on the WTC on9/11.

I haven't been able to find an actual text of the speech, just the transcript of the President's words. It's not like President's, Bush included, haven't ever messed up wording in a Live speech.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Again- WHY did they have to be preplanted? They found 19 hijackers willing to die for their beliefs, why couldn't they have found a few more to blow themselves up in the stairwells to render them unusable.


Where are YOU getting this thought about people strapped with explosives running into stairwells? Nowhere was that said. Poor logic.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
He is describing the valuable information gained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that has helped to disrupt planned terrorist plots. He is not describing a plot that happened, such as the WTC, he is trying to sell this new bill he is trying to get through Congress plane and simple.



The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists.

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.

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.

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

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.


Look at the first and second paragraph you will see that it clearly states that these are planned attacks and not ones that have been carried out.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I have read this entire thread, and it is all conjecture and again the attmept to make something sound like something else.

Where do we have Bush stating "Well, yes, there were explosives in the WTC and we bought it down. I was not able ot find that statement.


There were NO explosives in those buildings. None. 5 years later there is NO PROOF, nothing physical, that states that there were explosives. Nothing. I don't want flaming from the other side either, because you will refer to the same tired pictures.

I understand that we are all here to look into conspiracy, but this is ridiculous. You realize that the director is security was a former FBI agent, who trust me, made sure that building was secure, and if anyone would have known, he would. He also died that day, so I would believe that it would make him a martyr since he would have had to have known about a plot to 'blow up' the WTC.

In 1993, Al qeada attempted to destroy the WTC, to make them fall into one another. IN 2001 they accomplished the mission that they undertook.

This post should be deleted for the title as it is misleading and utter bullspit.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

This post should be deleted for the title as it is misleading and utter bullspit.



If I had a nickle for every time I thought to myself "Well, thank God and Greyhound you don't get to decide." I'd be so stinking rich now.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71


I understand that we are all here to look into conspiracy, but this is ridiculous. You realize that the director is security was a former FBI agent, who trust me, made sure that building was secure, and if anyone would have known, he would. He also died that day, so I would believe that it would make him a martyr since he would have had to have known about a plot to 'blow up' the WTC.



1) Not every is in on the loop. Its not like, if it was a government conspiracy,everybodyfrom Bush to Jose the janitor in the pentagon knew, perpetrated, and allowed it to happen.

2)They had plenty of time to set up explosives, we have reports of alot of construction work on one floor, people movignabout a sealed floor after the plane hit, moving heavy things about and slamming stuff around, and ofcourse the three day total shutdown; where all the security and power was off, and the buildings were empty as crew with big spools of cable and toolbox came in and allegedly added new fiberoptics in the building.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokinsmowl
weve been doing a lot of talking in other threads about 9-11 being used to split the country along political lines. is it possible that these statements were released to further fuel the divide of of the population?


Probably, because of the Novemeber elections coming up? If people are fighting about what happened than people will care less about how they slove it.

But I think he was also trying to improve his ratings mostly. As well, as disable public opinion of how intellengence was "disrupted". But I think, people like us, who live in NYC, or New York and the outlining areas. Should show a little more respect to the victims. Don't protest outside of the old WTC cite, march or protest outside of a goverment building there. Because then, the media makes our communities look like "insenseitive idoits". Hey that's what Glenn Beck, called us this year, so be within reason when protesting please.


I'm not debating merit or sources, but I think if we had shown more respect to the people there. The media would take us more seriously.

[edit on 9/17/2006 by smalllight]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

original quote by: esdad71
I have read this entire thread, and it is all conjecture and again the attmept to make something sound like something else.


The you would know that two of the original proponents of the arguement(namely myself and Valhall) through research have come to agree that he was not implying the WTC in that statement. So not all of this thread is conjecture.. I believe it has been fairly illustrated that it is NOT the WTC as helped proven by two posters that at first were for the arguement.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by deluded
Where are YOU getting this thought about people strapped with explosives running into stairwells? Nowhere was that said. Poor logic.


And nowhere was it said that there were preplanted explosives in the WTC by Bush anywhere in this speech. So where are you and others getting the idea that he did? Poor logic.

I am simply bringing up ANOTHER possible way to get the explosives into the stairwell, rather than automatically ASSUMING that they were preplanted.

[edit on 9/17/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Tone23 and Val, you both get WATS votes for this thread, for keeping it civil, and for putting so much work into it. Great job, both you you.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Zap, did I say I didn't think it wasn't possible. No. I just said, I was upset about the WTC protests this year. But we still need more varifiable proof of an explosive going off. Besides, the goverment won't release complete information about the whole day until later.

Bush was just talking about it as a threat, and that it did occur, or may have occured due to the plane fuel and building materials in the building. That doesn't mean however, that it isn't impossible that sucudide bombers could've ran in there and blocked people from coming out.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join