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: 20
4
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
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]


ahhhh, that part of the speech is not in direct reference to 9-11, if you think it has nothing to do with 9-11 then GG.




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Two 400,000 pound aircraft with full loads of fuel crashed into the World Trade Center towers and people cannot believe that that was sufficient to cause massive structural failure.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


No, I do NOT believe. Sorry, but I can't. BTW, I might have something called a degree in structural engineering. I'm not saying I am the mighty all knowing glob of dung....but come on people...when will we as a people wake up and realise we were lied to?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If you have any evidence that is even remotely as credible as that provided by NIST, then by all means post it.


This, in and of itself shows a closed mind. Sorry to point it out but you are not looking into the whole scheme of things. NIST has been shown by myself to be misleading at best...lying at worst. If you'd care to know how...I've shown in a thread that I can dig up. NIST...credible source? Maybe not anymore? I hope so actually. A lot of good things come from NIST.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Actually, I have an open mind on the subject and it just so happens that for me the NIST analysis is the most credible and plausible.

Can any agency or other group claim to have as many investigators with the kind of credential employed by NIST to come up with their findings?

I think not.

[edit on 2006/9/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Can any agency or other group claim to have as many investigators with the kind of credential employed by NIST to come up with their findings?

I think not.


Again, authority over the investigation was handed over to the director, who then chose who he wanted to do what. As an engineer, Griff maybe could confirm this: most people in that agency would not have been sitting around putting critical thought behind the assertions put forth in the report, but doing the modeling, editing, formatting, etc., and even that would have made up a small part of the whole agency in all likelihood. Do you realize that?

NIST is far from an agency that would dedicate its entire resources to a single report. It covers loads of subjects, and not all at once by everyone employed by them. For the third time, hopefully to avoid repeating myself again, the director was given authority to appoint whoever he wanted here, to do whatever research in any manner. So pretty much, the whole cover-up could come to rely simply on getting a director in who will do what you tell him. That's one person.


Really, Grady, if you want to get to the heart of all this, will you drop the whole 'NIST is top dog' thing and look at the facts? We can even use the information from the NIST Report, it doesn't matter. Their information and their conclusions are two totally different beasts, which is why the report is still of value despite coming to unsubstantiated conclusions based upon incomplete data that failed to check out in any of their actual tests and computer sims.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   

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 knew if I read far enough into the thread, someone would've realized what I had thought right off the bat. Of course you'd want an explosion lower to the ground floor (so as to trap eveyone above), not higher. On 9/11, that factored into more people being able to escape one of the towers; after it was hit on a higher floor level than the other.

I also don't think Bush was referring to the twin towers on 9/11 at all (in the referenced quote from his Rose Garden speech on 9/11/2006). If he even begins to add information to the events already completely explained
by the 9/11 Commission, he's inviting further scritiny and suspicion. The case is already closed, didn't you know that?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
lol, anyone who thinks that Querida's had access to the building and placed explosives should check them selfs into a phsyc ward.

These guys cant manage to make proper ieds in iraq half the time, and you expect them to be able to conduct clandestine operations in a major us land mark...



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrEguy
I knew if I read far enough into the thread, someone would've realized what I had thought right off the bat. Of course you'd want an explosion lower to the ground floor (so as to trap eveyone above), not higher. On 9/11, that factored into more people being able to escape one of the towers; after it was hit on a higher floor level than the other.


You should have read a little further. Someone mentioned how in 1993, the explosives were placed too low (in the basement) and therefore they realized that by placing the explosives higher, they could potentially trap people from escaping.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 
Tell Me , Do You Really Believe The 911 Commision Report ? These Clowns Were bought and payed for by the "REAL" orchestrators of this whole tragedy ! Cheney , Rumsfeld , Bush , And the rest of these traitors Period ! Open Your Eyes , And Ears , You Have Been Lied To By the Best of The Best . Or So They Think !



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Okay, but:

1. If there were explosives in the building, they probably had to have been placed before hand right?

2. I didn't see any of the plumes of smoke (the ones normally associated with explosions) above the crash before or during their fall.




So then how did they know exactly where the planes were going to hit? Sure I guess if they did plan it all out they could have marked the bombs by floor on the trigger and then when the planes hit they could have started the demolotion by that floor, but I doubt it.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnny Sasaki
 


The pre-positioned charges were not detonated until after the planes hit. They were detonated when the buildings actually fell.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Johnny Sasaki
 


The pre-positioned charges were not detonated until after the planes hit. They were detonated when the buildings actually fell.



I know. I'm talking about how, if there were'nt any exlosions above the plane crashes, they knew exactly where to start the explosions. They do start at the point of the crashes right? So how did they know?



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Amazing also that I haven't seen much mention of the fact that The President's cousin Wirt Walker III and his brother Marvin Bush were acting chairman and director of Stratesec Inc. aka Securacom , a multinational security company that was IN CHARGE of the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles Int'l Airport SECURITY on 9/11.

All three of these "secure" locations were breached on that day. hmmm?

This company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center...right up to the day the buildings fell down. Marvin Bush's last day was Sept. 10, 2001...the day before the attacks.

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."

Numerous bomb threats put the WTC on high alert in weeks prior to 9/11; Employees of WTC reported rare “power-down” alerts in days leading up to 9/11 in which power was shut down to various floors for maintenance work, rendering security controls and video cameras inoperative; many workers were seen entering and leaving the buildings; At least one security guard at WTC reported the abrupt removal of explosive-sniffing dogs five days prior to 9/11

Needless to say...there are so many coincidences to consider here....guess a little common sense and your own gut feelings will help you determine what YOU believe.

Basically though, it leaves one to ask more questions that continue to go unanswered. Then, when questions are asked, there seems to be a general attitude of secrecy, or aggressive accusations and ridicule about conspiracy.

That's one thing I haven't figured out. Why can't we just ask questions without being called unpatriotic. Why do people like Sean Hannity get so defensive and angry when someone asks a simple question that has yet to be answered?



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


ahhhh, that part of the speech is not in direct reference to 9-11, if you think it has nothing to do with 9-11 then GG.

Sounds like if what your statement says that maybe the same courts and legal system that attempted to try these people , young muslims in America, with video evidence from a day out in Disney, might have a lot more to say!


They were nearly convicted of terrorism check the link if you've not already seen it! Nothing in their home video had any reference to 9/11 or any other supposed links to terror!

Its six parts not sure which one but stinks of one rule for the US government and the ordinary person.

Even if he was referencing something else it deserves to be investigated IMO



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join