Bush admits there were explosives in WTC!

Yeah, he was not talking about 9-11 in that part of the speech.

He was talking about various plots that their intelligence disrupted.

www.guardian.co.uk...

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.

He is not talking about 9-11 at all. In fact what does any of this quote have to do with 9-11?

He does not mention the WTC in relation to these plots, and since he is talking about foiled plots, I think it's safe to assume he doesn't mean 9-11, which was actually carried out.

This has nothing to do with 9-11.

Originally posted by zren

Exactly. And i think Zaphod forgot that there were dozens of reports by presentators,
firemen, civilians and police that there were bombs going off everywhere...

On the contrary. There were reports of EXPLOSIONS. Explosion does NOT automatically equal bomb. Transformers explode. Gas lines explode. A lot of things in the WTC explode when great heat is applied to them, or they rupture. Or is it just in relation to 9/11 that explosion automatically equals bomb.

It is obvious ,why say anything about explosives at all. He is well aware of the theory of them being planted. So to use the term is almost the admittence of them being there. It's not like this was a slip of the tongue ,this was blatently written that way. Why add fuel to this fire with the mention of them. ALL HIS SPEECHES ARE SCRIPTED.

Then if talking about them is admitting to them, and his speeches are scripted, WHY WOULD THEY HAVE PUT IT IN THERE?

Your right, it is obvious that he is talking about his domestic spying program and the secret CIA prisons.

He now wants to pass a bill making this legal. It's pretty obvious that he is not talking about 9-11.

Please read the next couple of paragraphs. Read the ones before the explosives quote.

www.guardian.co.uk...

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.

This program has been one of the most vital tools in our efforts to protect this country. It's been invaluable to our country, and it's invaluable to our allies.

Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland.

By giving us information about terrorist plans we couldn't get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives. In other words, it's vital.

That's why I asked Congress to pass legislation so that our professionals can go forward doing the duty we expect them to do.

See how obvious it is that this part of the speach has nothing to do with 9-11.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by LeftBehind]

On the contrary. There were reports of EXPLOSIONS. Explosion does NOT automatically equal bomb.

There were reports of 'explosions' 'huge explosions' 'bombs going off' 'knocked to the floor' etc.

Transformers explode. Gas lines explode.
A lot of things in the WTC explode when great heat is applied to them, or they rupture.

Except people are talking about explosions far below the impact zone of the planes as well
and things were not 'greatly heated' there.

Or is it just in relation to 9/11 that explosion automatically equals bomb.

There were reports of 'explosions' 'huge explosions' 'bombs going off' 'knocked to the floor' etc.

That is the only thing that is in question here. Damage control --who knows..


Just makes you wonder

Originally posted by zren
There were reports of 'explosions' 'huge explosions' 'bombs going off' 'knocked to the floor' etc.

Except people are talking about explosions far below the impact zone of the planes as well
and things were not 'greatly heated' there.

And you're going to know it's a bomb how? An explosion will have the same characteristics as a bomb going off. Shockwave, shaking, knocking people down, etc. And why does a "huge explosion" mean that it was either? I've heard huge explosions that were nothing more than a transformer. A spectacular one, but that was all. As for things going off below the impact zone, we KNOW that some of the fuel went down elevator shafts into the lower levels, and it was either A. on fire, or B. extremely hot and near the flashpoint when it did.

LeftBehind,

I don't know what you think you're pointing out, but it's not sticking too well. Those paragraphs you just quoted, they have nothing to do with information he references from KSM - who was the planner of 9/11.

What part of this are you having a hard time connecting to 9/11?

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.

Once again, KSM planned the 9/11 attacks and the above statements refer to the 9/11 attacks.

let's assume he was talking about 9/11 and the wtc specifically.

why would they plant explosives high enough to trap people? they should be lower to the ground so that every floor between the plane crash and the explosion would be trapped.

even without planes, you would want to go with an explosion lower to the ground floor so as to trap eveyone above.

none of the comment makes sense. Bush has an articulation problem along with his speaking as if he took english as a second language.
perhaps this is akin to nucular in that he just speaks like a moron.

Originally posted by zren

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Point 1- Where did Bush say that they WERE in the building? He said that the PLAN was to detonate them in the building.

Only partially correct. He did NOT say "the plan was". He stated the "operatives were instructed to" and he did not put any modifiers on that statement (like fortunately they were unsuccessful, or thank God we stopped them, or but there is no evidence that they did).

Exactly. And i think Zaphod forgot that there were dozens of reports by presentators,
firemen, civilians and police that there were bombs going off everywhere...

Mkay, I may not be seeing it they same way you guys are BUT, where did Mr. Bush state that there were explosives int he building? He said that the plan was for that one guy to blow the explosives up far enough so people above couldnt get out. He never stated what sort of explosives and in this case, the explosive turned out to be a plane. President Bush never said that he had explosives, just that the operatives of the Al-Qaida or whoever was told to explode whatever it was so that people above couldnt get out.

Originally posted by Crakeur
let's assume he was talking about 9/11 and the wtc specifically.

why would they plant explosives high enough to trap people? they should be lower to the ground so that every floor between the plane crash and the explosion would be trapped.

even without planes, you would want to go with an explosion lower to the ground floor so as to trap eveyone above.

none of the comment makes sense. Bush has an articulation problem along with his speaking as if he took english as a second language.
perhaps this is akin to nucular in that he just speaks like a moron.

I agree with this guys statement also. Crash lower, trap more, has the chance of toppling the building. Very nice.

No he didn't. And seeing as his words have now been quoted more than a half dozen times in this thread, I don't feel a requirement to do it again. Just read what he said, and then stop rewording it.

And he doesn't say they weren't and he doesn't say they were. He implies they were by stating the instruction given to the operatives that carried out the attacks.

I think the issue is that we have the planner of 9/11 saying there were bombs. The people in and around the WTC saying there we're explosions going off, ie: bombs. And the fall of the WTC is suggestive of controlled demolitions.

ON THE OTHER HAND

We have the Nist report that says no bombs went off which is the official version of the story.

Who are we to believe?

[edit on 16-9-2006 by xEphon]

Originally posted by xEphon
I think the issue is that we have the planner of 9/11 is saying there were bombs. The people in and around the WTC saying there we're explosions going off, ie: bombs. And the fall of the WTC is suggestive of a controlled demolitions.

ON THE OTHER HAND

We have the Nist report that says no bombs went off, which is the official version of the story.

Who are we to believe?

WTC 7, i belive, is the only one i think looked controled. The fact they they fell straight down doesnt mean a whole lot. Your gonna hear lots of "explosions" happening, espcially when a plane hits a building! Another guy on this thread something like gas lines blowing up and transformers... that seems logical for those explosions.

And as far as the statement making sense, yes, it does make sense. Please remember KSM planned these attacks AFTER Youssef's "failed" bombing of the WTC in 1993. In that attack the explosives were placed in the parking garage in the basement - BELOW THE EXIT LEVEL FOR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING. So the statement makes perfect sense that KSM wanted the explosives set high enough in the building to prevent exit.

YOU are taking that statement to mean equivalent to the level the planes hit. That's not what was said, and I do not believe that was what was meant.

On the contrary, an explosion at say the SIXTH FLOOR to the 22ND FLOOR, would cause quite a bit of grief if it was successful in blocking exits.

Originally posted by Crakeur
why would they plant explosives high enough to trap people? they should be lower to the ground so that every floor between the plane crash and the explosion would be trapped.

Because in reality the explosives weren't meant to trap people, they were demolitions meant to bring the buildings down.

It's easier to explain away explosives that were just meant to trap people than it would be to explain away controlled demolition and the skill and time involved to place such demolition.

I'd say this was a victory for the conspiracy theorists of the world, but the fact of the matter is that the same sheep who buy the official story will buy it when our government tells us that "terrorists" planted explosives beforehand and that they didn't tells us originally for national security purposes or some other crap.

Peace

Originally posted by LeftBehind
This has nothing to do with 9-11.

Are you serious? What in the world do you think he was refering to then, the Macy's Parade? Perhaps some Bass Fishing Tournament? Pie Eating Contest?

Bottom Line is that the word explosives has been used 'offially' for the first time since 9-11, that is pretty signifigant in and of itself.

He also said in the same speech that "We didn't ask for this war." Like hell they didn't.
This picture is proof of that lie.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've heard huge explosions that were nothing more than a transformer.

How high up in buildings are large, high-voltage, high-amperage transformers allowed? Do you know that?

Considering that there were reports of explosions up and down the building, I'd say that the transformers were allowed in at least SOME of the areas that had them reported. And let's not forget the natural gas lines that ran up to the restaurant on the roof.