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: 16
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I am attacking the thread title, not VBal and Tone. Geezzz. Where, in the ORIGINAL POST do we hear GWB say, there were explosives in the WTC.


This thread has gone in many different directions, and should have been split as Val did.

The original plan for the WTC was to destroy the foundation of one, and then topple it into another. I remember reading it and I am looking for some type of Link (it was a non-fiction book about AQ and the 90s) and it talked that they wanted to find alternatives to bring down the towers, and one was to get explosives to the upper floors to see if that would be more effective. There however was another idea from someone else to use the planes, and this was the agreed upon operation.

Bush is no angel, however he is not smart enough to coverup 9/11 (nor his administration).




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71


Bush is no angel, however he is not smart enough to coverup 9/11 (nor his administration).


Right - I totally agree. And that's my biggest hang up with the whole "the government did it" theory (among other hang ups). But I'd like to point out that IF the statement being made by Bush was an accidental slip of information about more details of what the terrorist attacks involved than was intended to be released, well, it's his "not smart enough" that has resulted in us discussing this.

By the way - nobody is arguing with you that the title is wrong. But at this point, it's a trivial matter.

And then one more thing, have you watched the video of this speech? If not, I urge you to do so (it's linked in the first post). When Bush started saying the statement about "operatives were instructed...that the explosives blah blah blah" he acted, looked and sounded like some one who had just gone off script and wished they could back up. He acted like some one who had realized they were saying something they didn't mean to or want to say.

[edit on 9-17-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
He acted like some one who had realized they were saying something they didn't mean to or want to say.


He has three different speaking looks.

1. Shifty, like he thinks he's pulling a fast one on anyone who might be listening.

2. Uncomfortable, like he said something that he regrets for who knows what reason. He often gets this look right before he drops the n word. He knows he can't say nuclear and he knows he gets mocked by almost every person over the age of 9 that can say the word correctly. This expression of discomfort shows up in other scenarios, like the one in the clip this thread is based on.

3. Clueless, like he's not really sure he understands everything he is saying. You see this look on kids taking a foreign language, who are forced to read from a book in class. They could be reading " I am a huge loser who craps my pants nightly" but they only pick up the basic words so the understanding goes out the window. He gets this look often and he makes up for it with an eye squint and a slithery pronounciation of words/places/names that he knows. The eye squint and the modified pronounciation probably make him feel more knowledgeable.


He's a gem to watch. It would be more fun to laugh at him if he wasn't our president. Now, he says things like "we dropped a bunker buster on their nucular facilities (start eye squint) because (start the buttery smooth sounds to emphasize that he understands the next part) they were wrong. (end eye squint, giggle uncomfortably and walk off stage)" and we have to bask in the humiliation that this schmuck is the face of our nation.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Personally, I think Bush is a crummy public speaker, because he has no sense of political correctness in speech. I remember just after 9/11 in some speaches you would swear he wanted to say "those Mother*$#$#@$ arab rag heads" but instead he had to say AQ, or OBL.

I watched the video, and I do not see any hard proof of anything. He starts talknig about it around 5:30.

What I see him saying is that the US has collected some excellnet information that was used to prevent further attacks. Attacks that were stopped at Heaththrow. US military bases in Africa and a few others. KSM had alot of information and thankfully DHS/CIA/FBI have been able to use this intel to make sure the US is safe.

My biggest strike against any type of conspiracy is that if they did it, why would they not do it again, in grander fashion, a few months later. Set off a nuke in Atlanta or LA? Fact is that they were rushing to try to STOP other operations that I am sure they also did not know about. One of those was flights is dicussed in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I know what book your talking about. It was written by Dean Kootz about ten years ago or so.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I don't believe my government is looking out for my, individual, best interests. I do believe my government is trying to look out for all of our best interests. Our goverment is run by people ... people are fallible ... mistakes will be made. SHould these mistakes be ignored or forgotten, absolutely not, but let's remember that just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy at work.



Originally posted by a1ex
Im going to ask a question:

Leaving all science aside...
Leaving all Religion aside....
Leaving opinions that tell you how to think aside...

What does your common sense tell you?

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


This is how things were done millions of years ago and to date hasn't changed...that's why we are still here...

again im talking to my self so ignore me





posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Our debate does make since for Building #7, here's the search results from Youtube Youtube.

And this sums most of what we think, I guess.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rachel07
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?



Bush never said there were explosives in the building. He made a passing comment that there was a plan to place explosives in the WTC ... there have been many plans to do so ... there was one previously successful attack that was intended to do much more damage to the tower.

I agree ... from a lay perspective it appears like a controlled demolition. However, the towers did not come down perfectly straight .. debri and chunks of the towers hit many surrounding buildings .. causing other buildings eventually to fall (WTC 7). A controlled demolition brings down a building with almost no damage outside that city block.

We have never seen anything like this because there has been no prior act of terrorism at this level ... no fully tanked fullsize commercial aircraft has been intentionally flown into a building before. The towers (and other buildings) were built under the premise that if there was a airplane strike it would be accidental ... either small private plane or commercial plane that had some sort of malfunction ... not a full-throttle, gas-tank loaded attack.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

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.



Another factor is the "force" of the impact. Here's an interesting press release by a professor of Applied Physics at Stanford University. His math shows that a fully loaded 767 or 757 hitting a structure at full throttle would have the same impact as roughly 1/20th of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

www.stanford.edu...

Under such an intensive explosion it would be no surprise that the structure would be comprimised and greater levels of heat may not be neccessary to start a chain reaction of collapse.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas


Another factor is the "force" of the impact. Here's an interesting press release by a professor of Applied Physics at Stanford University. His math shows that a fully loaded 767 or 757 hitting a structure at full throttle would have the same impact as roughly 1/20th of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

www.stanford.edu...

Under such an intensive explosion it would be no surprise that the structure would be comprimised and greater levels of heat may not be neccessary to start a chain reaction of collapse.



You know, you were doing pretty good until you linked to that. LOL I feel like saying "I don't think I would have told them about the goat."

Sorry - but that link is for crap. Doesn't matter whether he's from Stanford or MIT. A "back of the envelope" calculation within hours of the event is worth less than the stamp to use the envelope for what it was intended for.


According to his “back–of-an-envelope calculation,” a fully-laden Boeing 767 or 757 jet aircraft would have the impact of approximately one kiloton of TNT when running into the side of a building. That is equal to roughly 1/20th of the energy in the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.


I'm sure refinement of these calculations would have reduced it a bit. There's a measure of energy consumed in plowing through the wall of the building, and in the FAE.


Although the World Trade Center was designed to withstand “amazing kinds of forces” and even an aircraft collision, architects may not have taken into consideration the enormous amount of heat a plane loaded with enough fuel to fly across the country would generate. The intense heat could have melted the buildings’ cores, allowing for the collapses, he suggested.


OOPS - that's where he stepped in doodoo. Nah - we've been passed this level of bad science for at least a year here at ATS. We don't want to start over and go through that again.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay, I've got another question (by the way, I don't agree with what you just said. That's not in agreement with the 9/11 Commission Report. 15 out of 19 hijackers had no clue whatsoever what their mission was - all they knew is that they had pledged to commit martyrdom for their faith.) Here's my next question:

Since the 9/11 attacks never involved bombs on the planes, or in the buildings (as is alleged by some) and the muscle hijackers were not selected or trained until after the plan was committed to by bin Laden, why were they trained in the use of explosives?

[edit on 9-17-2006 by Valhall]



I've never heard of the hijackers having been trained in explosives; however for the sake of this response I'll assume your statement to be correct. I would assume that all al-qaeda operatives have at least a basic understanding of explosives ... I'm sure that is covered in Ka-Boom 101 at training camp. Are you saying that they had a particularly extensive training in explosives?

I would still assume that even if they had an elevated training of explosives that would be more of a cross-training situation. The more skills someone has the more "operations" you can place them on.

If there were explosives on the planes ... placed by the terrorists ... and there was clear evidence of such, why would there even need to be a coverup? The government could just come out and say ... we found evidence of explosives on the planes that were flown into the WTC buildings.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
There weren't explosives on the planes. I said they decided early on not to try to get explosives on planes because it was too high of a risk of getting caught and stopped. That was my point. The operation did not (according to the official record) involve ANY explosives.

I don't think there is a kaboom 101, but there may very well be.

These "muscle hijackers" were sent to be trained specifically for this operation. Bein's they went to see Allah immediately after it was complete, I don't think anybody was investing in broadening their capabilities for more missions. The 911 Commission Report (which is what I quoted so if you take that as correct, then, well, there you go) states they were sent to be trained in "hijacking, taking down U.S. Air Marshalls, and explosives". That's a pretty limited curriculum when you get down to it. That's why the "explosives" part kind of stands out.

[edit on 9-17-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Okay, taking a leap of faith here, but no explosives would make it on the plane unless some idiot found his way into the cargo area and lit a lighter long enough to make the gas chamber explode. To long and to risky. Explosives being in the building? Possibly. Demolition explosives? No. Things such as wireless dynamite implanted in the building? Once again, possibly. Understand, no one knows what a construction site will do after being paid to build such strong buildings. There is a chance that wireless dynamite was used because well hey, you couldn't get into WTC unless you worked there or unless you were going there to trade. Those terrorists would've never made it in under that fact because there is a security check anyway being that WTC was so terribly important. Thus, this does lean a bit to the side of explosives being planted before hand. It takes years to plan out such an attack. It also takes years to make sure that no one is wary of it until last minute. Not making an argument, just a statement to circulate a bit more thought here.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Ok.....this is what I think.

Bush was speaking about 9/11 because the evidence is more and more clear that explosives have been planted in the two towers and he wants us now to believe that the terrorists planted it. Especially since the latest 9/11 video (few days ago) came out on google video and it is clear for everyone that explosives were planted......and the buildings came down controlled, only not by the terrorists but.....

Did anyone see the video's yet??






[edit on 17/9/2006 by rai76]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rai76
Ok.....this is what I think.

Bush was speaking about 9/11 because the evidence is more and more clear that explosives have been planted in the two towers and he wants us now to believe that the terrorists planted it. Especially since the latest 9/11 video (few days ago) came out on google video and it is clear for everyone that explosives were planted......and the buildings came down controlled, only not by the terrorists but.....




[edit on 17/9/2006 by rai76]


No denying when the evidence in your face, now it's up to the citizens to actually decide what's true or not. If they want to swear that the terrorists planted the explosives, then they are ignorant. No doubt if they had, those explosives would've been on every other floor [including the basement] so as to destroy every little thing and body.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
www.popularmechanics.com...

follow the above link, I think you'll find much interesting reading. Primarly though, right now, I wanted to point out that while the heat for steel melting, as in liquifying, is not up for debate, one thing many of you here have seemed to forget is that for steel the structural integrity is not a sudden drop-off at melt-point. I mean, it can't hold up all of of it's "room-temprature" weight until it suddenly liquifys and then collapses. No, it's a gradiated drop-off. As it heats up, it gets soft, and it can't hold up nearly as much as it did when it's hard. The WTC towers were designed with tight tolerances; there was just enough steel to hold up the weight of the floors above it, add in some weather stress, perhaps a little earthquake or a 707, and that's it. Soften the steel, and it's support strength drops off. I say this because of the oft-quoted B-25 into the empire state building, which was vastly over-guilt at a time when the strength of steel was not yet fully valued.

Which leads me to yet another point, which I should put in another thread...so I will (why do you find it so much easier, even more gratifying to believe that your own government is out to get you then that a foreign power, who has stated that they want to get you, isn't?)



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
You know, you were doing pretty good until you linked to that. LOL I feel like saying "I don't think I would have told them about the goat."

Sorry - but that link is for crap. Doesn't matter whether he's from Stanford or MIT. A "back of the envelope" calculation within hours of the event is worth less than the stamp to use the envelope for what it was intended for.


According to his “back–of-an-envelope calculation,” a fully-laden Boeing 767 or 757 jet aircraft would have the impact of approximately one kiloton of TNT when running into the side of a building. That is equal to roughly 1/20th of the energy in the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.


I'm sure refinement of these calculations would have reduced it a bit. There's a measure of energy consumed in plowing through the wall of the building, and in the FAE.


Although the World Trade Center was designed to withstand “amazing kinds of forces” and even an aircraft collision, architects may not have taken into consideration the enormous amount of heat a plane loaded with enough fuel to fly across the country would generate. The intense heat could have melted the buildings’ cores, allowing for the collapses, he suggested.


OOPS - that's where he stepped in doodoo. Nah - we've been passed this level of bad science for at least a year here at ATS. We don't want to start over and go through that again.



What about the NIST report, involving hundreds of techincal experts reviewing the data and determing that the structure was weakended from impact, there was jet fuel on fire across 40,000 sq ft and temperatures reached 1,000 celsius? According to their report:



Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.


This seems a reasonable explanation to me .. the majority of the experts used were from outside the NIST agency. Though I suppose it we're focusing on this as a conspiracy it'll be hard for some to accept any report that is funded through a federal agency.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Observer
www.popularmechanics.com...

follow the above link, I think you'll find much interesting reading. Primarly though, right now, I wanted to point out that while the heat for steel melting, as in liquifying, is not up for debate, one thing many of you here have seemed to forget is that for steel the structural integrity is not a sudden drop-off at melt-point. I mean, it can't hold up all of of it's "room-temprature" weight until it suddenly liquifys and then collapses. No, it's a gradiated drop-off. As it heats up, it gets soft, and it can't hold up nearly as much as it did when it's hard. The WTC towers were designed with tight tolerances; there was just enough steel to hold up the weight of the floors above it, add in some weather stress, perhaps a little earthquake or a 707, and that's it. Soften the steel, and it's support strength drops off. I say this because of the oft-quoted B-25 into the empire state building, which was vastly over-guilt at a time when the strength of steel was not yet fully valued.



I'm not going to comment on your question about gratifying and government, because you're not talking to me. And I'm real glad you're not.

Okay, the above paragraph...yes, this has been handled IN DEPTH on various threads on this board. According to the maximum sustained temperature the structural elements saw during the ONE HOUR of burning, they MAY have decreased to 87% of their original strength.

Now, this statement:


The WTC towers were designed with tight tolerances; there was just enough steel to hold up the weight of the floors above it, add in some weather stress, perhaps a little earthquake or a 707, and that's it.


This is SO wrong...and SO in opposition to common sense, and readily available information (say, for instance, the NIST report), that I'm not even going to get you a link. NO...it was not designed with "tight tolerances" and there was not "just enough steel". Read up on the structural analysis of the buildings and the safety factors involved in the building codes under which these buildings were built.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Okay, this is enough. You guys need to go get you a thread where you can re-discuss these issues. Because you're way behind on these topics, and that is NOT what this thread is about. If you'll do just a bit of searching on the 9/11 Conspiracy forum you will find the discussions where these have been addressed.

No...the NIST report states no structural element saw sustained temperatures above about 250 C.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Observer
www.popularmechanics.com...

follow the above link, I think you'll find much interesting reading. Primarly though, right now, I wanted to point out that while the heat for steel melting, as in liquifying, is not up for debate, one thing many of you here have seemed to forget is that for steel the structural integrity is not a sudden drop-off at melt-point. I mean, it can't hold up all of of it's "room-temprature" weight until it suddenly liquifys and then collapses. No, it's a gradiated drop-off. As it heats up, it gets soft, and it can't hold up nearly as much as it did when it's hard. The WTC towers were designed with tight tolerances; there was just enough steel to hold up the weight of the floors above it, add in some weather stress, perhaps a little earthquake or a 707, and that's it. Soften the steel, and it's support strength drops off. I say this because of the oft-quoted B-25 into the empire state building, which was vastly over-guilt at a time when the strength of steel was not yet fully valued.

Which leads me to yet another point, which I should put in another thread...so I will (why do you find it so much easier, even more gratifying to believe that your own government is out to get you then that a foreign power, who has stated that they want to get you, isn't?)


Simply because I believe it's all about power and maintain power or to keep it. I strongly believe that your goverment (or at least some people in it) and a few of other people that have power in your country, (THE very very rich) are having a higher agenda (get more richer and get more power in your country) as well the people that want more power in the middle eastern region, have combined together and planed this all and they don't give a # about you!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join