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: 17
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
That's exactly what i said in another thread, just not verbatum.




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I've read more eloquent text from my 6 year old nephew's school doodling's.
What a dime bar.

admin edit:
This post is a perfect example of how a person gets banned after one warning in a "strict TAC Enforcement" forum.

ATTENTION "Myowncrusade": Refrain from useless, snide commentary that adds NOTHING to the discussion or you will be banned from posting on this site. Review the rules of posting in our TAC, review our civility and maturiy requirements as well.

This is your one and only warning.

Springer...

[edit on 9-17-2006 by Springer]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
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.


It's possible he strayed from his script (as he has a tendancy to do), and upon saying that, thought "well there's another conspiracy theory".

But, again it's entirely possible that it was an accidental slip. Or an unaccidental slip. Either way, I'm suprised it's gotten so much attention, since it didn't actually give us anything to work with.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
lol, watch when the al caida bomb stuff wears off.

there gonna start pointing fingers that iraq fired a missle at the pentagon an it wasnt a 747.

it really makes no since why they have to cover up so much stuff, i mean, yea the truth might hurt but according to my grandma"the truth will set you free"



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Well you're right about one thing anyway. It wasn't a 747.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
A separate thread has been added to address this sub-topic:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


from Zaphod58
Marvin Bush had NOTHING to do with security on 9/11. He was with another company that did insurance for the WTC, but he left the security company in 2000.



from Yahoo Groups, posted 9/15/06:
au.groups.yahoo.com...

You've got to be lucky to make a $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million.

Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.

Mr. Silverstein's first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin's cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines: two key players in the 9/11 attacks.

The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.

Another little "coincidence" -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against "terrorist attacks".

Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.

There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.

How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, "Pull" is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.


The list of 911 gaffes by insiders in high places just grows as the truth comes out of the horse's mouth...







[edit on 17-9-2006 by Collin]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
meh. forget it.

[edit on 9/17/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Well if someone in the media dont jump on this one, then we have yet another conspiricy.

Bush stated it in plain english. Like others have stated here, he did not follow up with any statement of denial of the explosives being used. Therefore it must be assumed that explosives of some kind were used.

I do not believe Bush is real smart, but at the same time I dont assume that those around him are complete idiots.

This was written into a speech to cover his butt when, not if, the expolsive evidence is brought back to the forefront of the investigation.

This is a way to say, yea we knew about the explosives, but were not anxious to let our public know how badly we had be violated.

Or some cover up crap.

Seems like the pressure is rising, probably more leaks to come in the following weeks before the elections in November. Just look how the gas prices are falling.



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

Originally posted by grimreaper797
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.

Then be disgusted. And be realistic, if they're plotting to use bioweapons, then that means that they're going to use bioweapons. Thats a threat that you don't hold back from stopping, for practically any reason. A handful of 911s would be preferable to the major cities being eradicated by smallpox epidemics, just like a handful of pearl harbors would've been preferable to nukes hitting american cities.

NO ONE FREAKING DIED FROM THAT!

Because it was stopped, one way or another. Thats the point. THe response to a massive bio-terror attack is moot.


valhall
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.

I think at this point its more likely that KSM was talking about some attacks, somewhere, in some plan, that would've invovled bombs in a building, not necessarily an attack that was actually carried out, let alone 911. Or heck, it might've been part of some early version of the 911 attack plan, a complicating detail that was ultimately rejected, but that bush (or rather of course, his speech writers) included because it demonizes KSM (not that that is really necessary anyway).

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.

Thats a good point, why train them in explosives if they're not going to set off explosives. Perhaps part of the initial plan for 911 was, in fact, to set off bombs in the WTC, to kill the people fleeing (and the rescue workers responding, which, apparently, is what happens in palestinian attacks, a second bomb kills the responders and good samaritans). BUT, at the same time, why send guys that were trained in explosives on the plane, seems they'd want to reserve them for any bombing portion of the plot , unless, of course, that part was scrapped and their training canceled, incomplete, superfluous. If that was the case, it might jive with their being the martyr-ready types, ready to run up 20 flights with a bomb vest, or be on the plunging planes.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
nygdan,

Concerning your next to the last paragraph...did anybody let you know this thread is not part of the collaborative fiction writing??? I'm serious. You pulled every bit of that outcha butt! There's nothing about that speech that could even hint that your speculations have a basis.

And then on your last paragraph. I've already stated several times - there were NO operatives even assigned (let alone trained) prior to the finalized version that bin Laden approved which was the 4 planes, 4 buildings, no bombs version. (according to the official report, that is).

And I agree that if you have two threats and can't field both - go for the bioweapon one. But that wasn't the case, bein's they learned of the bioweapon one after they captured KSM, which was after the 9/11 attacks.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
First, I didn't see subz say this doesn't amount to anything. But I wait to see if he confirms that.

Oh this amounts to something alright. The wording might of been arranged for maximum wiggle room, but the mere presence of such an equivocal passage regarding explosives and KSM indicates there is definately something brewing here.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I can't believe this thread is so long! I read the text, watched the video, and it sure sounds like GWB was talking about the "PLAN", as Zaphod was quoting. You would have to be really "reaching" to make anything out of this. All of a sudden GWB is grammatically correct? Make up your minds! I can see where someone who is pouting and looking for another reason to think there is a conspiracy might hear one in this speech, but it is simple.

The only explosives in the WTC's were the bean and cheese burritos baking in the cafateria. THAT, and the thousands of gallons of jet fuel within the aircraft that went into the towers!

......as for a conspiracy,


THERE IS NOT.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Cree wolf....very good reasoning.....

the only problem is since the CT'ers have NO PROOF the 9/11 was an inside job they need a place to vent their frustrations and delusions.

All this because the are either anti-usa or just sore losers who didn't get 'thier guy' into office.....twice.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
There is also NOTHING stated in the video to connect what he is talking about to 9/11. This is one of the saddest threads I have ever read if there are so many that are so adamant that he is "telling the truth" of 9/11 with a slip up.

I would like to know how many people who have posted to this thread watched the video. I bet, including me, it was the poster, Val, and maybe, maybe 4 others tops. This is what hurts the CT movement whether it be for bigfoot, crop circles or WTC7.

As soon as someone hijacks the post with a "Bush's Neo-con reptilian secret agents used holographic equipment to sneak into the WTC for weeks and plant explosives" thpe comment, the thread is trashed.

There is nothing, nothing anywhere in the video where Bush admits to anything. He was reporting info he obtained from his PDB or from another meeting that included information on the terrorist we used to prevent attacks.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Cree wolf....very good reasoning.....

the only problem is since the CT'ers have NO PROOF the 9/11 was an inside job they need a place to vent their frustrations and delusions.

All this because the are either anti-usa or just sore losers who didn't get 'thier guy' into office.....twice.


Way to contribute, glad to have your input.

Technically, there's no proof that Muslim extremists did it, either, since several of the guys that the government said were on the planes turned up alive and well in various countries.

Not saying I buy into the pre-planted demolitions theory, but if we're going to nitpick, it goes both ways.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
There's nothing about that speech that could even hint that your speculations have a basis.

The text of the speech, no, but the ensuing events, sure. Unless we assume that the people that were in a position to get a clarification didn't bother, and as much as I think that the ATS community is clever, I don't think that only people on ATS would've said 'wait, did he just say there were bombs in the WTC?"


there were NO operatives even assigned (let alone trained) prior to the finalized version that bin Laden approved which was the 4 planes, 4 buildings, no bombs version. (according to the official report, that is).

Ah. I missed that, apologies.


But that wasn't the case, bein's they learned of the bioweapon one after they captured KSM, which was after the 9/11 attacks.

Yes, and I am not saying that al qaida has some soon-to-be-ready or been-ready bioweapon in their hands. But I am saying, IF we are beleiving what it looks like KSM is saying, that there were bombs invovled on 911, THEN we've also got to beleive that they're seriously working on bioweapons, and whatever the implications of Bush, the NIST, etc, not knowing, or lying, or covering up about the bombs, its 'small fries' compared to being hit with smallpox weapons.


subz
the mere presence of such an equivocal passage regarding explosives and KSM indicates there is definately something brewing here

Why can't it just mean the KSM talked about some plot that invovled used bombs to cause even more deaths than the initial attack (and thus showing that he's a 'mean little bugger").


cree wolf
The only explosives in the WTC's were the bean and cheese burritos baking in the cafateria. THAT, and the thousands of gallons of jet fuel within the aircraft that went into the towers!

I think we can all agree that, whatever KSM was talking about, he didn't mean that the aircraft's hitting the building and exploding were the eplosions that would prevent people from escaping, the planes were the explosions that would make people want to escape in the first place. THEN there'd be a secondary set of explosions that kill thousands more as they streaming down the stairwells.


ferretman
the only problem is since the CT'ers have NO PROOF the 9/11 was an inside job they need a place to vent their frustrations and delusions.

Clearly any time the president is talking about the WTC attacks and mentions anything like bombs inside the building, its going ot pique people's interests. This transcript IS interesting, because, on the surface, it DOES seem like it could be saying that al qaida had agents that planted bombs in the towers to go along with the attack (or the capitol, pentagon).


esdad71
There is also NOTHING stated in the video to connect what he is talking about to 9/11.

Except that KSM is talking about 'plane attacks on buildings inside the united states', and 911 was the only plane attack on buidlings in the united states.


astygia
Technically, there's no proof that Muslim extremists did it, either, since several of the guys that the government said were on the planes turned up alive and well in various countries.

Except that none of them are alive, bin ladin declared war on the US, attacked it previously, supplied money to the hijackers, admited it on tape, and the people captured have admited to it. I mean, sure, we don't have say.....well what exactly? We have tapes, confessions, admissions, motive, means, ids, the only thing we don't have is one of the hijackers coming back to life and saying 'we did it'.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Nothing is mentioned by mistake.
Especially when it is in the president speaches.
This, like the Pentagon tapes have surfaced because there is overwealming opinion pointing to something more than planes bringing down the wtc's.

With the president using the words bombs, 911 and wtc together, isnt a slip, or a coincidence.
It was done on purpose, paving the way for further, release of tid bits of information.

Maybe ewxpert demolitions have recently been discovered in the most minute of portions, and the government is currently GAGGING anyone releasing this info.
But being aware information tends to leak, they are simply painting a possible scenario for when it hits the fan.

'' It was no surprise explosives were found, we have been under the assumption for some time that some sort of explosive material was used by the terrorists ''

They are already covering there a$$es.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Nothing is mentioned by mistake.
Especially when it is in the president speaches.
This, like the Pentagon tapes have surfaced because there is overwealming opinion pointing to something more than planes bringing down the wtc's.

I think a much better explanation is that they wanted to say 'look how goshdarned evil this guy is, he did the attack, to kill thousands, but wasn't satisifed with that, and wanted to set off more bombs, specifically to cut off the routes of escape'.



Maybe ewxpert demolitions have recently been discovered in the most minute of portions, and the government is currently GAGGING anyone releasing this info.

To what end? If bush planted the bombs and did 911, why bother waiting until now to try to use this ruse to cover it up? THey'd simply say 'al qaida smuggled in bombs, and set them off right after the planes hit the towers. Our american buildings are tough, but the combined attack was enough to let the evildoers knock them down'.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Except that none of them are alive, bin ladin declared war on the US, attacked it previously, supplied money to the hijackers, admited it on tape, and the people captured have admited to it. I mean, sure, we don't have say.....well what exactly? We have tapes, confessions, admissions, motive, means, ids, the only thing we don't have is one of the hijackers coming back to life and saying 'we did it'.


Yeah they are, never said he didn't (x4), and who admitted to what?

Again, the IDs of the hijackers, some of them ended up being people that are alive and holding a job someplace.

Anyway, snide comments aside, my point was that while it isn't definative evidence of anything, this comment isn't something to dismiss, either.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Because they didnt count on the public continuing to look for something they said wasnt there.
IF they had of said bombs went off in the towers, immediately after the towers fell, They would of needed proof.
And that pile of rubble would of been investigated by parties OUTSIDE of the inner circle.

The explosives, much like hte pentagon tape just released were ONLY Released because there is a growing public opinion that we were duped, by the leaders.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join