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: 15
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Okay, I just want to know what happened since this disscussion is fairly confusioning.




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
That's a good question. I haven't followed things very well sometimes, and I missed that in the comission report. Maybe they were trained as backups to other operatives, so that they could be interchanged if necessary. Say an operative on the ground was caught, they pull a muscle hijacker and put him there. I really couldn't tell you.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Yes, I agree, it's a confusing issue. I'm just trying to get some kind of logical reason for the training. Was it for some remote chance they got caught and they needed to know how to take a pop cap, a stick of Juicy Fruit, and a shoe string and pull some type of 30 second MacGuyver move to make a swift get away?

Serious minds want to know.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
It could've been anything for all we know. But I think they wanted a back up plan. If the goverment did find someone on the inside who would talk about the planes, then they would just plain blow up the buildings by acting as tourists or a false alias or something. That's what I think.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
well its like this. If it were the 2003 attack he talked about (unlikely), then they would have not only had to get the information out of him immediately but also had to stop the attack immediately at the same time. Things simply dont work that quick. This plot he is talking about was definately in the final stages. The second wave of attacks never made it passed Moussaoui being told to get flight training. That is way too early in the plot. He mentions nobody else in the second wave attacks because lack of operatives. That means there were no operatives to tell about the explosives in the second wave of attacks.

How can you tell some one to plant the explosive high enough in the building so the people above are trapped when:
1. you have no operative to tell that too
2. you have not gotten into the plot enough to even include explosive training yet.
3. you disbanded the plot when Moussoui was captured because you had NO OPERATIVES.

to me that sounds like a plot that never left the ground. so how could he be talking about either of these plots? They mention KSM because he gave information. The questioning was vital to find out how they planned and capturing of al qaeda operatives. The intent was indeed to show that KSM has lead us to information on how the terrorist plan...they just gave away too much information about it to the public.

by the way the capture of Moussoui because of "intelligence" is what they are trying to get support for, so it is connected to disrupted plot actually. They disrupted it, just not intentionally.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
They did not say that there were explosives in the WTC. It states that KSM talked about attack plans, and that at least in some of those plans, the plan could invovle explosives, and setting them off such that people couldn't escape to lower levels.

That is not precisely the same thing as saying 'there were explosives (other than, of course, the planes) in the WTC".

Bush admited nothing, he noted what KSM had said about some of their plans, not that those plans were carried out, and not that there were explosives in the WTC.

Also notice that Bush says there were planning on bioweapons attacks.

So lets look at this from a few ways. One is that Bush knew that al qaida, an evil terrorist organization, carried out these attacks, used plane crashes and explosives, but didn't tell anyone about teh explosives. Another is that he didn't know about hte explosives until they beat it out of KWM. And while we're arguing over if Bush really did it, these guys are growing anthrax or smallpox and planning to release it in our cities.

I mean, if we are talking whats in the transcript as literal truth, then bush may have covered up al qaida having used explosives (or that the administration was ignorant), not that bush did 911, or anything else that is particularly relevant. If we take the statement at face value, then the most pressing thing it brings up is that al qaida is a horribly murderous monstrosity that must be annihilated, all other concerns be damned.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
This won't be my last post to this thread, but I'm hitting the road Tuesday, and probably won't be back for a couple of weeks. My schedule is going to be something like 14 days on the road for 2 at home. Today and tomorrow are cleaning and packing and getting ready.


I just wanted to take this chance to thank you all for a good well DISCUSSED thread, and for not letting things get out of hand like so many of these do. This has actually been an interesting thread to be involved in, and instead of dreading new responses I've been looking forward to your information in it. I wish I could give you all WATS votes for that.

Thanks guys.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
nygdan its not about whether or not al qaeda did it or bush did it yet. Its about explosives being in the WTC. If there were, then this is ground breaking. Whether it was the government or al qaeda its ground breaking because all the official story people said there simply couldn't have been explosives in the building. the old "how could they get them in their without anyone knowing, would go out the window. Mainly because there WERE explosives in the building, and they DID get them in their, whether it was al qaeda or the government, they got there. That deserves some major explaining.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


So lets look at this from a few ways. One is that Bush knew that al qaida, an evil terrorist organization, carried out these attacks, used plane crashes and explosives, but didn't tell anyone about teh explosives. Another is that he didn't know about hte explosives until they beat it out of KWM. And while we're arguing over if Bush really did it, these guys are growing anthrax or smallpox and planning to release it in our cities.

I mean, if we are talking whats in the transcript as literal truth, then bush may have covered up al qaida having used explosives (or that the administration was ignorant), not that bush did 911, or anything else that is particularly relevant. If we take the statement at face value, then the most pressing thing it brings up is that al qaida is a horribly murderous monstrosity that must be annihilated, all other concerns be damned.


you have obviously forgotten that there WERE bioattacks against bush's opponents, and the anthrax came from fort derrick, and although millions were spent against the anthrax mailing threat, no one was ever charged.

it is a mistake to think of al-queda and the bush league as seperate entities.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I'll agree that a clarification from the administration could help, however, lets consider that there hasn't been any clarification, and that, surely, someone at that press conference, or someone somewhere in the media with access to white house press relations, could've requested a clarification, along the lines of 'so there were bombs in the WTC center??". Normally 'trust no one' is a darned good motto, but lets be realistic too.

Given that this almost certainly isn't a statement that there were bombs in teh building, would it be any less reliable now that it isn't an affirmation of many people's beleifs?

I mean, IF bush could be telling hte truth about there being bombs, then, we have the more pressing question, what do to with an international terrorist cabal that is working on carrying bio-terror attacks against us.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Okay, I have another question, but first to smalllight's comments. In none of the intell they got from KSM or bashibbi-wtf-whoever, did anybody ever mention "a back up plan". And it appears they got some pretty detailed info from these guys, so I tend to believe they would have gotten details on a back-up plan had it existed.

Here's my next question:

Okay - let's pretend for just a second that the KSM statement of operatives who had been instructed to place the explosives at a level high enough to prevent occupants from escaping, really was alluding to 9/11 (just bear with me on this). Okay, and we have WTC 1 and 2 as targets for the planes and which do seem to exhibit a little help in getting brought down (if they didn't we wouldn't still be talking about it 5 years later). Then we've got the Pentagon that got hit by flight 77 and had a moderate-sized hole in it and then also collapsed.

Okay, and of these three targets we have witness accounts of hearing multiple explosions at both locations. So taking all that into account there's this appearance that there COULD HAVE BEEN explosives planted in the target buildings. After all, for some reason, the muscle hijackers were all trained in explosives, even though as far as the official record is concerned, the plan didn't call for the use of explosives.

Now, we know at least two middle eastern men who were later arrested in Tennessee for trying to obtain fake IDs with false documents had badges dated 9/5/01 for WTC 1. And we also know that the Pentagon wing that was hit had been under construction - so we have one building that a suspicious dude was in just days before the attacks, and another building with construction contract workers having access. So that gives means.

So...the fourth target, according to KSM intell, was the Capital Building. And if there is anything to explosives being planted in the targets, one would think there might be explosives planted there as well. More importantly, let me state it this way: If the GOVERNMENT suspected explosives had been planted in the target buildings and were investigating things, we would think the GOVERNMENT might suspect that there were explosives in the Capital building, right? So is there any indication that there may have been suspicion by the government that there were explosives planted in the Capital Building?

I don't know - but there is this issue that arose approximately 1 to 2 weeks after the attack in which an alleged anthrax contamination took place in the Capital Building that closed it down for about a week or so, right? And to date, there has never been anything come of that investigation. In fact, it's one of the wilder goose chases in the September 2001 events. So, for a week or so, the fourth target was being "investigated" for anthrax contamination that nobody seems to be able to track down the source of, even though everybody agrees that a strain of anthrax should be easily identifiable and traceable to a small number of sources.

And so, I'm just asking, could this be a sign that at least the government SUSPECTED explosives were planted in the target buildings?

[edit on 9-17-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I mean, IF bush could be telling hte truth about there being bombs, then, we have the more pressing question, what do to with an international terrorist cabal that is working on carrying bio-terror attacks against us.


if bush is telling the truth about bombs, then that means that NIST lied, the 911 commision lied, FEMA lied, and the media, full of 'investigative journalists' all lied by ommission.
it also means the bush league has been lying all along about everything.

who to trust?

trust no one. trust the facts, and connect the dots, people.

don't be 'spun' by 'word salad'. the liars in the whitehouse are up to there eyebrows in it.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
if bush is telling the truth about bombs, then that means that NIST lied, the 911 commision lied, FEMA lied, and the media, full of 'investigative journalists' all lied by ommission.

Or they were ignorant of there being bombs.



it also means the bush league has been lying all along about everything.

Lets pretend that they knew about the bombs, and lied.

Who gives a damn. THe same people that put the bombs in the building then, al qaida, are continuing to attack us, and have even gone so far as to start plotting to use bio-weapons.


who to trust?

Neither the guys plotting to hit us with anthrax/smallpox, nor the people telling us not to torture those plotters for information.
Hitting us with planes, killing thousands of people, thats one thing, concocting bioweapons plots against us, thats one of those 'all effing bets are off' deals.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
val that would show a blatent conspiracy to hide the fact that explosives where planted in even the "most secure"(unsecure in this case) places. The highest places of government, were loaded up with explosives.


that alone would be VERY damaging.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
No, that would show that they SUSPECTED they were there, but not that they WERE there. Searching the building doesn't mean that they were definately there.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   


'll agree that a clarification from the administration could help, however, lets consider that there hasn't been any clarification, and that, surely, someone at that press conference, or someone somewhere in the media with access to white house press relations, could've requested a clarification, along the lines of 'so there were bombs in the WTC center??".


One would think that every word the president uses in a speech is carefully thought out to convey the message the president wants to get across. The fact that what was said in the speech is at best confusing and to date as far as I know there has not been a clarification speaks volumes in and of itself.
To leave these things unclarified, Rumsfeld and the missle comment, Rumsfeld and the plane shot down comment and now the president and explosive's comment one has to wonder if in fact they are coming clean and telling the truth allbeit in bits and pieces.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Hitting us with planes, killing thousands of people, thats one thing, concocting bioweapons plots against us, thats one of those 'all effing bets are off' deals.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Nygdan]


are you KIDDING ME?! did you just freaking say this? killing thousands of american, thats one thing. Developing a PLOT to use bioweapons, well that just puts all. NO ONE FREAKING DIED FROM THAT! Im sorry but for you to even act like a plot to use bio weapons is more serious then the actual murder then thousands of citizens has me in utter disgust.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, that would show that they SUSPECTED they were there, but not that they WERE there. Searching the building doesn't mean that they were definately there.


Right - that's what I asked. I asked if this could be a sign that the government SUSPECTED explosives were there.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
val that would show a blatent conspiracy to hide the fact that explosives where planted in even the "most secure"(unsecure in this case) places. The highest places of government, were loaded up with explosives.


that alone would be VERY damaging.


Well, see, grim, this is my whole thought process on WHY we would be lied to for five years. The government just wouldn't be able to admit a level of incompetence that allowed:

* a building that had previously been bombed by the same terrorist gang,
* the Pentagon,
* and the Capital building

to have explosives planted in them. Well, at least this government wouldn't be able to admit it, because they can't even admit when they've made a bad decision...so screwing this pooch, I just don't see a confession coming.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, that would show that they SUSPECTED they were there, but not that they WERE there. Searching the building doesn't mean that they were definately there.


Right - that's what I asked. I asked if this could be a sign that the government SUSPECTED explosives were there.


Right, but from the wording of Grim's post it was an if/then thing. They searched the building, they knew explosives were there. If I misunderstood that then I apologize, but that's how it read to me.




top topics



 
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join