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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:09 PM
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'm assuming your side of this debate is that he didn't mean what he said? Basically, it's being taken out of context?

I'll put forth my opinion assuming that's your argument.

So i'll say this, you just contradicted yourself. You are saying that that's not what he meant. You are saying to get maximum death tolls, you plant it lower, which is true, I agree. But who would do that? TERRORISTS would do that. OUR GOVERNMENT would not. See, if terrorists really did this, they would go lower and blow themselves up/plant explosives, whatever they did, to insure maximum deaths. They didn't do that. Now, if our government did the explosives, they would go higher. Now why would they do that? Simple, because their objective was to create public support and justification for war. Their objective isn't to kill 50,000+ americans. It doesn't make it any less wrong that they "only" killed 3,000, but my point is, they did the bare minimum as far as death toll goes, they planted explosives high enough to "only" trap those people above the impact zone, and they waited long enough for most people to escape before detonating.

Bush has his speeches written for him. If he has some basic reading skills, which he does at the very least, there's no need for a screw up in what he says. This was blatantly put into this speech, as a signal maybe? Maybe as a sign to get these discussions going? I don't know what the purpose was but you can't hide the fact that he DID say it. This is what happened in the towers that day. You can't deny it. You can't hide it. You heard it straight from his mouth. Quit trying to sugar coat it and take it for what it is. Our government did this. Case closed.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by DickBinBush]




posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
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.


Valhall, you dissapoint me, did you even read the speach?

How can those paragraphs have nothing to do with it, when I posted the paragraphs before and after the explosives quote?

Those paragraphs have everything to do with what he is talking about and it is not 9-11.

I didn't think I would have to qoute it all together to put it in context, plus I dislike large quotes, but apparently its the only way to get this point across.

Here it is in context.


www.guardian.co.uk...

So we're working with Congress. The Supreme Court said, You must work with Congress. We are working with Congress to get a good piece of legislation out.

The bill I have proposed will ensure that suspected terrorists will receive full and fair trials without revealing to them our nation's sensitive intelligence secrets.

As soon as Congress acts on this bill, the men our intelligence believed helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks can face justice.

The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists.

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.

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.


He is not talking about 9-11. He is clearly defending the CIA intelligence programs.

When he talks about Sheik Mohammed's information, he is clearly talking about him providing information that ended up disrupting terror plots. He is not talking about 9-11.

Here, another quote for emphasis.


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.


That is the context used before he starts in on his bullet points about what kind of attacks were disrupted.

He is not talking about 9-11, I don't know how I can make this any clearer.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


Excuse me? There were no natural gas lines running to the restaurant on the roof. That would be in violation of building codes.

The limited natural gas usage was restricted WTC 5 and WTC 4. There was NO natural gas in WTC 1 or 2.

The World Trade Center Bombing: Report and Analysis


Natural gas is supplied to the complex but is in limited use, mainly
in the Vista Hotel’s kitchens but also in restaurants located on the
concourse of 5 WTC and the coffee tasting room at the New York
Commodities Exchange in 4 WTC. No natural gas is used in the two
towers.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Then what I was told and read in other sources was wrong. I was going by sources in other threads, and didn't check up on it.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
LeftBehind,

I know damned well what he was defending. That hasn't got a stinking bit to do with the fact that the evidential points that he throws out in his attempt to persuade us all to back his passionate desire to torture people in his concentration camps also includes his statements about the 9/11 attacks.

One more time here - KSM planned the 9/11 attacks. That plan included flying planes into buildings. Bush says KSM stated during interrogations that the operatives were instructed to ensure the explosives went off at a sufficient height to block exit by the occupants of the building.

Yes, he's trying to get to bludgeon prisoners...BIG DAMNED DEAL, he still said the above.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I thought perhaps some of you would benefit from this link...
Explosives



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Well shoot if you're gonna use that for your definition, then they already had the explosives planted from the time they were constructed. In which case, we already knew they were there.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


Excuse me? There were no natural gas lines running to the restaurant on the roof. That would be in violation of building codes.

The limited natural gas usage was restricted WTC 5 and WTC 4. There was NO natural gas in WTC 1 or 2.




Natural gas is supplied to the complex but is in limited use, mainly
in the Vista Hotel’s kitchens but also in restaurants located on the
concourse of 5 WTC and the coffee tasting room at the New York
Commodities Exchange in 4 WTC. No natural gas is used in the two
towers.

It is freakin hilllllllarious watching Zaphod, Left Behind, and others like them continuously get pummelled on a daily basis. The pathetic and flimsy arguements, the willingness to ignore all the evidence, the constant backing of each others weak points, taking things out of context.... Please, Valhall, twitchy, take it easy on them, its not a fair fight.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush
I'm assuming your side of this debate is that he didn't mean what he said? Basically, it's being taken out of context?


No, I'm merely pointing out the lunacy in placing explosions higher up in the building to trap the floors when there is a plane crashed and burning on the higher floors.
He might have read the words right off the teleprompter and said explosives instead of explosions, referring to flying the plane high up in the building. (just thinking here, not saying this is the case) It is commonplace for someone to subconsiously swap out one word for another. Maybe that is all this is. Remember, he reads nuclear and says nucular.


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


than what the hell is he saying when he says that the explosions were meant to trap the floors? did he want to ensure that the furniture didn't go anywhere?

if he was referencing a demolition, he'd have said something about the bombs/explosions being placed throughout the building, not just high up.

As I said to dick, it just makes no sense in the context of the WTC. It's a strange comment for sure but he's been known to say them. In an interview with Katie Couric he recently said something akin to "the purpose of my presidency has been to tie Iraq to the events of 9/11." The man shouldn't be allowed to use too many words in a day. He just doesn't display the ability to do this with any great skill.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
I thought perhaps some of you would benefit from this link...
Explosives


ok..? we know what explosion means. provide some evidence to back up your boys that "transformers" or other objects exploded and violently enough to bring down both towers. Oh and, you're saying that this gas and jet fuel went down the elevator shaft to exactly find some transformers and be a big enough bang to bring down the tower? And if that wasn't good enough..it then proceeded to do it in BOTH towers? That's all forgetting Building 7 of course. Give me a break..



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fifth Horseman
It is freakin hilllllllarious watching Zaphod, Left Behind, and others like them continuously get pummelled on a daily basis. The pathetic and flimsy arguements, the willingness to ignore all the evidence, the constant backing of each others weak points, taking things out of context.... Please, Valhall, twitchy, take it easy on them, its not a fair fight.


And members like you are the biggest reason I'm glad that I'm leaving for a new job where I'm on the road all the time. Hey let's not have CONSTRUCTIVE debates and discussion or anything. It's so much easier to just INSULT everyone who thinks differently than you do. I mean why bother to try to DENY IGNORANCE when you can embrace it and ridicule anyone who doesn't toe your line.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush

Originally posted by twitchy
I thought perhaps some of you would benefit from this link...
Explosives


ok..? we know what explosion means. provide some evidence to back up your boys that "transformers" or other objects exploded and violently enough to bring down both towers. Oh and, you're saying that this gas and jet fuel went down the elevator shaft to exactly find some transformers and be a big enough bang to bring down the tower? And if that wasn't good enough..it then proceeded to do it in BOTH towers? That's all forgetting Building 7 of course. Give me a break..


Where have I or anyone else said that the transformers or other exploding things brought the towers down? All I am saying is that they can be responsible for the REPORTS of explosions in the towers.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
There so many posts on ATS that say what an idiot President Bush is and how he mis-speaks that I can't count them all.

Now he's a genius and says exactly what he means. Go figure



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Well, that seems to be the problem

What you think he said:


Originally posted by Valhall
KSM planned the 9/11 attacks. That plan included flying planes into buildings. Bush says KSM stated during interrogations that the operatives were instructed to ensure the explosives went off at a sufficient height to block exit by the occupants of the building.


What he actually said.


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.


Notice he says nothing about planning 9-11, you added that. Notice that they are talking about disrupted terrorists attacks.

He is saying that KSM gave them information that stopped other 9-11 style attacks from happening.

You see first he says that KSM has provided information to disrupt plots. Then he says "For example", as in an example of a distrupted plot.

He is not, as you would have us believe, going off on a tangent about 9-11 in the middle of talking about other plots.

Here maybe this spacing will help.


Emphasis and comma added by me.

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.


You can't take the second part as a stand alone commentary on 9-11 when he is clearly bragging about disrupted plots. He is saying that KSM gave them info to stop another 9-11 style attack.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by DickBinBush
I'm assuming your side of this debate is that he didn't mean what he said? Basically, it's being taken out of context?


No, I'm merely pointing out the lunacy in placing explosions higher up in the building to trap the floors when there is a plane crashed and burning on the higher floors.
He might have read the words right off the teleprompter and said explosives instead of explosions, referring to flying the plane high up in the building. (just thinking here, not saying this is the case) It is commonplace for someone to subconsiously swap out one word for another. Maybe that is all this is. Remember, he reads nuclear and says nucular.


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


than what the hell is he saying when he says that the explosions were meant to trap the floors? did he want to ensure that the furniture didn't go anywhere?

if he was referencing a demolition, he'd have said something about the bombs/explosions being placed throughout the building, not just high up.

As I said to dick, it just makes no sense in the context of the WTC. It's a strange comment for sure but he's been known to say them. In an interview with Katie Couric he recently said something akin to "the purpose of my presidency has been to tie Iraq to the events of 9/11." The man shouldn't be allowed to use too many words in a day. He just doesn't display the ability to do this with any great skill.


The government would plant explosives higher up to insure that only minimum deaths occured. Just enough to create public support. Pay attention dude. Terrorists would plant them lower. They didn't. The man admitted there were explosives. Stop ignoring that. Focus on whether they were high up or down low. They were clearly high up. Now go back to my point. Terrorists wouldn't go high up. The government would. Now as I said before..CASE CLOSED!!!!



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Hey Zaphod and Valhall,i'd just like to congratulate/thank you guys for trying to keep this discussion civil and not turn into a ridiculous flame war like 90% of the other threads do. With that said..........pls continue



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
That's the only plan KSM planned with planes flying into buildings. Read the 911 Commission Report. So there wasn't another plan with planes flying into buildings that KSM could have been referring to. This is it - 9/11. period.

P.S. To further emphasize this point - this is not only the only plan KSM was involved with that had planes flying into buildings, it was WITHOUT A DOUBT, the only plan KSM was involved in that had planes flying into buildings that was CARRIED OUT...and I will ONCE AGAIN POINT OUT, that Bush said "the operatives had been instructed..."

[edit on 9-16-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by DickBinBush

Originally posted by twitchy
I thought perhaps some of you would benefit from this link...
Explosives


ok..? we know what explosion means. provide some evidence to back up your boys that "transformers" or other objects exploded and violently enough to bring down both towers. Oh and, you're saying that this gas and jet fuel went down the elevator shaft to exactly find some transformers and be a big enough bang to bring down the tower? And if that wasn't good enough..it then proceeded to do it in BOTH towers? That's all forgetting Building 7 of course. Give me a break..


Where have I or anyone else said that the transformers or other exploding things brought the towers down? All I am saying is that they can be responsible for the REPORTS of explosions in the towers.


Then what brought down the towers? Answer that for me. Clearly not the jet fuel that was burning because it was not hot enough and by indication of the black smoke, the fire was dying pretty much immediately. Terrorists if they blew themselves up would have gone lower, not higher. So tell me, what brought down the towers?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Zaphod, that's hardly a response. I'm asking if you know where high-voltage, high-amperage transformers are allowed in a skyscraper. They are fire hazards, obviously. These things are usually located in the basements of buildings. I might have to look through the building codes that applied to the Towers to see exactly where they could have been placed, but I seriously doubt they would be conveniently placed all over the buildings just so you could have something to explain away all those explosions.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
No that was the only successful one.

I have no idea if Bush is even telling the truth about this.

However it is clear that they are talking about disrupted plots, or at least claims of disrupted plots.

In no way shape or form do the 9-11 attacks qualify as a disrupted plot, so I have a hard time seeing 9-11 in a speach about how KSM has provided valuable information to disrupt plots.

I can't remember the name, but wasn't there another plan involving airplanes that was foiled a few years before 9-11?

Edit:
Are you trying to say that the operatives aren't instructed in disrupted plots?

He was talking about failed plots, I assume that they plan those ones to.

Notice what he says right after that.


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.

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.


So he talks about foiled plots, says a few words about 9-11 without specifically mentioning it, and then goes back to talking about disrupted plots? Does that make any sense at all?

It is clear that he is talking about disrupted plots, whether or not he is lying about said plots is another issue altogather.



[edit on 16-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join