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: 18
4
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
They are already covering there a$$es.


17 pages of posts and only one gets it?

Interesting.

Looks like they pumped up the volume on HAARP.




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   
You know, it amazes me how everyone cracks how stupid Bush is, until he says something that if you look at it crosseyed it says exactly what he meant to say, if it fits the conspiracy they believe in. NOWHERE in this speech did Bush say "There were bombs in the WTC." If you squint hard and look at it sideways you can say he did though, so that's what people are gonna believe.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by zren
www.guardian.co.uk...


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.

Watch Video (realplayer)


Are we now slowly gonna get fed through the media al-Ciada miraculously was able
to place explosives in the buildings? Give me a break LOL!

B-U-L-L-S-H-T

[edit on 16-9-2006 by zren]


The actual words of The President have been altered to feed the conspiracy crowd. What The President actually said was:

For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows. KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent, and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazeed. ***

powerlineblog.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I get the feeling that the people who actually wrote Bush's speech are laughing at all of these outcries.


It really saddens me that the government, to this day, refuses to trust its own people



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Probedbygreys.....

WHAT!!! How dare you actually show the entire quote!!! You must work for:

A: Bush and his cronies
B: Aliens
C: The Illumanitte
D: NWO
E: Are delusional

The anti-usa/Anti bushes here have no interest in actual facts. They, generally have a tendancy when quoting someone, quoting only the words that would back their adgenda.

Anyone with half-a-brain knows this thread is void of any substance and still opened because some individuals have nothing else better to do.

What bothers me most is that the 'mods' have let an obvious trolling thread to stay opened and not throw it in the 'trash bin' where it belongs.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
While I would *love* to believe that the Bush cronies were really deeply involved in 9/11 - and nothing has completely convinced me yet - it's very apparent that Dubya was *NOT* saying that KSM tried to get operatives to plant explosives in the WTC. First of all, that would be the most idiotic method of attack possible from AQ's perspective. How would the guys get in there and all the way up with huge bags of explosives? On top of that, it seems quite apparent that "explosives" was one of Dubya's misspeaks, and that he meant to say "explosions," that KSM wanted to make sure the EXPLOSIONS were high enough. That's really the only thing that makes complete sense. People looking for Freudian slips about the most ridiculously convoluted, immense and highly-populated conspiracy ever thrown at the world should be advised to look elsewhere for their rumor-laden conjectural/circumstantial evidence.

Besides, we all know it was really the Armenian Mafia, in association with the Bilderbergers and Symbionese Liberation Army, who brought down all the buildings at the WTC site. They did it with laptop nukes supplied to them by breakaway members of Mossad and the CIA, who've formed a group known as The Seventh Seal. They're very mysterious folks (they have twenty sleeper cells around the world, and a secret underground base in the heart of Antarctica).



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by probedbygrays

The actual words of The President have been altered to feed the conspiracy crowd. What The President actually said was:

For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows. KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent, and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazeed. ***

powerlineblog.com...


Go look at Valhall' post on Page 10... He is talking about 9/11.
[edit]And the anthrax attacks 7 days after 9/11 were traced back to the pentagon labs...

[edit on 18-9-2006 by zren]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Watch the video, and listen to the words if you cannot read the transcript. It says noting about 9/11 and explosives.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Much of the problem of interpretation of this speech comes from the fact that there are essentially three different sources for GWB's words.

First is the transcript linked in the opening post. This comes from a newspaper and was provided by a transcription agency who presumably took down the speech as they heard it.

Second is the original scripted speech which will be slightly different as it doesn't account for any errors in the delivery of the speech or unscripted ad libs.

Third is what GWB actually said which may be different to both of the two written accounts.

For example, probedbygreys quotes the phrase:

"had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows"

This probably comes from the scripted speech as it clarifies why instigating the explosions higher up helps to prevent people from escaping but neither the transcript or the video record GWB saying the words "out the windows".

The transcript quotes GWB as saying:

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks"

but as the scripted version indicates what he actually said was "planned attacks" and not plane attacks. This phrase was presumably misheard by the transcription agency and on the video he clearly says "planned attacks".

So he is actually talking about disrupting planned attacks on buildings - attacks which never took place. Sorry but this just does not refer to 9/11 directly in any way.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Alex Jones angle here:




www.infowars.com...



I was already 99.999% convinced that WTC 1,2 and 7 were brought down with explosives/incendiaries before this thread came along but this is interesting nonetheless.




[edit on 18-9-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
There is only one thing to believe, and that is what he says in the video. I could care less about a transcript or an interpretation of what was said. I want to know what was said.

I am banging my head on the table on this one, and how people can be so blind to something that is 'proven wrong' with a video...a VIDEO!!!


I laugh when people call Officail story believers sheeple, when this is a prime example. Don't watch the video, instead believe what I tell you. Do not beleive the source, he is evil so let me tell you what he said. That is the propoganda, not our current administration trying to fight this war in another country.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
esdad71, you're entitled to your own opinion and I respect the one you've shown. But dont try to belittle those of us who believe the US government was complicit in the events of 9/11. I dont belittle those who believe the official story, it's not much to expect the same in return.

I understand that there are other conspiracy theorists who make fun of those who do believe the US government, but that does not give others the right to engaged in the same behaviour. Dont lower yourself to their level, basically.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There is only one thing to believe, and that is what he says in the video. I could care less about a transcript or an interpretation of what was said. I want to know what was said.


After going into some detail I have come 180 degrees from where I started... I at first thought holy crap.. he just admitted to explosives in the WTC. But after taking some time to analyze what he said.. and yes the video pretty much sums it up well.
I have come to the conclusion that he was not talking about bombs in the WTC.
I think he was either saying that there was another foiled plot that they got from KSM.. or that when he said "explosives" he was referring to the planes. And believe me, I am the farthest thing from a Bush supporter.... But you have to callem like you see em... and After 18 pages of this thread I think it is safe to assume he was not talking about boms in the WTC.

original quote by: esdad71
I am banging my head on the table on this one, and how people can be so blind to something that is 'proven wrong' with a video...a VIDEO!!!



Granted video evidence is pretty compelling.. not everyone in this thread may have been able to watch it or listen to it (for one reason or another). Without the video it looks totally different (what he said) then it does on paper. until last night I wasnt able to watch the video either(my work comp has no speakers) So I had only the text to go by. But after watching and listening to it.. it helped reinforce my change of position.


original quote by: esdad71
I laugh when people call Officail story believers sheeple, when this is a prime example. Don't watch the video, instead believe what I tell you. Do not beleive the source, he is evil so let me tell you what he said. That is the propoganda, not our current administration trying to fight this war in another country.


I do not laugh when debators from either side resort to petty genralizations and name calling.. it always takes credibility away from anything else they may have said in that post or thread. And yes I agree all aspects should infact be considered before coming to a determination on where one stands pertaining to said issue.
In this case it was a legitimate debate as to whether he implied other explosives.
At A cursory glance it definately can appear that that is exactly what he was inferring. But when you tae a few to disect the paragraphs and listen to the video(especially HOW he talks during that part) youll notice that he is just fumbling and stumbling as usual.


sorry to ramble just thought Id elaborate...



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by zren
Go look at Valhall' post on Page 10... He is talking about 9/11.
[edit]And the anthrax attacks 7 days after 9/11 were traced back to the pentagon labs...


You just did it again. He is not refering to the anthrax attacks after 9/11, he is refering to AQ's attempts at producing biological agents. Jumping to conclusions always makes for a hard landing. You are so intent on proving your version of events that you miss the obvious.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
audio of President saying Planned attacks, not Plane attacks

I was shocked when I saw how flimsy the WTC building construction was. Those things were weak as could be. The only coverup I can see is the one that allows construction companies to get away with building such death traps.

And if the WTC was going to be demolished with bombs then like all demolition jobs the explosives would be placed at the base to instantly crumble the structure, not at the top or high up. And why crash planes into the buildings when bombs could be used instead? No it is all conspiracy theory not fact as far as I can see.


And The President did not have sex with that woman, Miss Luinski, and he never told anyone to lie, never!



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by probedbygrays
And if the WTC was going to be demolished with bombs then like all demolition jobs the explosives would be placed at the base to instantly crumble the structure, not at the top or high up. And why crash planes into the buildings when bombs could be used instead? No it is all conspiracy theory not fact as far as I can see.

Well thats your opinion. However, have you taken the time to understand how controlled demolitions are performed? I can tell you simply that they do not just plant explosives at the base and then it collapses into it's own footprint like magic.

If thats all it takes then there would be no demolition specialists or industry.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I agree with the "planned". I pulled the audio (from Alex Jones' site) into Windows media and then selected slow play speed and that's when I could clearly hear planned.

BY THE WAY, if you play the audio on slow speed, Bush sounds drunk! LMAO...it's funnier than all get out.

With that solved (for me at least) I agree these references are to attacks that were either aborted, thwarted, or not yet attempted.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
After reading the thread and now the new evidence that he said "planned" instead of "plane", I'm going to have to do a 90 degree turn (not full 180 because I said before that it was unclear what he was stating). Cheers to Valhall, Tone, Zaphod and all others who took the time to analyse this to the fullest. My hat's off to you guys.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I agree TONE, and your comments were not rambles but the foundation of what this site is about. A good, healthy debate stimulates the mind and allows you to think outside of the box. I am on the fence with more than some would beleive. It is difficult bieng labeled. Also, don't bring a knife to a gunfight. If I had not seen the video, and read only the edited transcript, I feel much different. However, I never defend something without fact or a basis for arguement.

However, does no one think is strange that it took 18 pages of posts to convince some people of something that existed bieng the truth? That is why I am laughing.


[edit on 19-9-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
However, does no one think is strange that it took 18 pages of posts to convince some people of something that existed bieng the truth? That is why I am laughing.


[edit on 19-9-2006 by esdad71]


I agree 18 pages was alot. But in the middle, this thread was trying to cover this topic from like three or four major perspectives.. and man did it get confusing in there.
Its not really the amount of pages as much as the time it took for the debate to wind down. if you look at it that way it was settled in just a couple days. Which is much shorter than some debates in this forum...


it was a fun debate.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join