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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
So what bsbray, ONLY transformers can explode? What about computer monitors? Tv sets? And god only knows what else was in some of those offices. We don't know EXACTLY where the fire was at any given moment, so it could have been anything going off when those explosions were reported. I don't know exactly what caused those reports of explosives, but it doesn't automatically mean that it was a bomb.

As for what brought the towers down, once one floor failed, there was no way to stop it. The bottom was stronger and thicker, but it's not going to stop all those floors above as they slide downward. And the farther they go the more momentum and force they have.

[edit on 9/16/2006 by Zaphod58]




posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Explosives are things that explode things. That would be bombs, pure and simple. Airplanes are not explosives.

So, to recap, we have numerous firemen reporting that they heard bombs/explosives going off right after they arrived. Witnesses said they heard bombs/explosives during the first attack. The firefighters were put under a gag order and all film that anyone had was confiscated by the government. We have Bush, giving a talk commemorating 9/11, talking about explosives. Also, many of the people being treated for lung and other ailments from the debris of 911, have been reported as having signs of exposure to high levels of radiation, such as that received from nuclear devices.

How much plainer could it be? There were explosives, namely bombs that went off that morning. Bush may have been a lose cannon, talking about bombs on 911, but that is what he was talking about. That's what the whole speech was about.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush]

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!!!!



Case reopened.

Bush is stating what they learned from the terrorist. You are saying that Bush is saying that the gov't planted explosions. He doesn't say "we learned that we should plant explosivies higher up."

If the explosions were clearly high up, how do you explain the thoery of controlled demolition and the squibs all up and down the building? Tossing it out and destroying that theory?

How about the explosion in the basement? Terrorists coincidentally detonating a bomb on the same day the gov't decides to pull off the wtc attack?

your logic, if we can call it that, is not right. Read the article in full and you will see that he is talking about disripted plots and things they learned FROM THE TERRORIST.

Case closed.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
READ THE 911 COMMISSION REPORT.

Further to that, you do not say "operatives had been instructed" when you are talking about nothing but plans that did not get carried out. If you plan something and then don't carry it out, then you never get to the point you "instruct the operatives". You just plan, and then don't do anything.

There have been no failed plans to fly planes into buildings that KSM was involved in, so it wasn't a failed operation he was referring to.

KSM was involved in one plan with planes flying into buildings...and the operatives of that plan had been instructed to ensure the explosives were set at a height in the building to prevent occupants above that point from escaping.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Explosives are things that explode things. That would be bombs, pure and simple. Airplanes are not explosives.

So, to recap, we have numerous firemen reporting that they heard bombs/explosives going off right after they arrived. Witnesses said they heard bombs/explosives during the first attack. The firefighters were put under a gag order and all film that anyone had was confiscated by the government. We have Bush, giving a talk commemorating 9/11, talking about explosives. Also, many of the people being treated for lung and other ailments from the debris of 911, have been reported as having signs of exposure to high levels of radiation, such as that received from nuclear devices.

How much plainer could it be? There were explosives, namely bombs that went off that morning. Bush may have been a lose cannon, talking about bombs on 911, but that is what he was talking about. That's what the whole speech was about.


Well there you go folks! We have it on difinitive authority that ONLY bombs can explode.

Then maybe you can tell me who planted the bomb on that transformer that exploded one street behind the house I was having dinner in last year. Or the one near my fathers work when the plane went low over the wires. BOMBS ARE NOT THE ONLY CAUSE OF EXPLOSIONS. There could have been hundreds or even thousands of things in those buildings that explode that WERE NOT BOMBS.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So what bsbray, ONLY transformers can explode? What about computer monitors? Tv sets? And god only knows what else was in some of those offices.


Go talk to some experienced firefighters and ask them if they would ever report an exploding computer monitor or TV as an "explosion" or "bomb". Sure, technically, they could explode, but again, I really doubt this is the case, and I really think you're reaching man.


As for what brought the towers down, once one floor failed, there was no way to stop it. The bottom was stronger and thicker, but it's not going to stop all those floors above as they slide downward. And the farther they go the more momentum and force they have.


This is demonstrably false. For example, some 90% of the mass fell (ie, was ejected) OUTSIDE of the footprints, and did not fall straight down. At any rate, the "more and more momentum" thing doesn't work at all. I'm going to have an article posted on another website shortly that will explain this to you in full detail.

Also -- even NIST is backing away from pancake theory now, though to exactly what, they haven't made clear. Just thought this would be something you would be interested in knowing.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
P.S. - Jet fuel burns at about 700 degrees. The WTC towers were built to withstand up to 3,000 degrees. The plane alone would not have brought down the buildings, there had to be some other device(s) that did. Hey, you think, maybe they were BOMBS??



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Val is right on this one Leftbehind. KSM WAS the one that planned 9/11. He helped plan the 93 bombing IIRC, and he planned 9/11 as well. He was in love with the idea of crashing planes and blowing them up, but this was his only SUCCESSFUL operation.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
but in the Q&A bush does work in 911 directly.


And in this case, we questioned people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we believe ordered the attacks on 9/11, or Ramzi Binalshibh or Abu Zubaydah, cold-blooded killers who were part of planning the attack that killed 3,000 people.
source: guardian.co.uk



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
. Also, many of the people being treated for lung and other ailments from the debris of 911, have been reported as having signs of exposure to high levels of radiation, such as that received from nuclear devices..



so Bush has now admitted that the US gov't set off a nuke in the WTC?


this is the problem with all the different conspiracies. They cross each other out.

Can you please show me where you are getting the radiation exposure information? I have been reading, almost daily, about the lung ailments that many of the workers and rescuers are suffering from but I haven't seen anything related to radiation. If this is something the whole country is aware of and not NYC, I would like to alert the media here, the press, and anyone else that will listen because right now Giuliani and Whitman are duking it out over who decided to ignroe the air warnings and didn't enforce wearing masks while working in the pit. Last I checked, radiation isn't stopped by a mask.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I say the President meant the planes' explosiveness where it traps people from even escaping (including jumping out windows safely), instead they jumped to their deaths because its too high and beyond any fire fighting equipment with high ladders to reach them.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Go talk to some experienced firefighters and ask them if they would ever report an exploding computer monitor or TV as an "explosion" or "bomb". Sure, technically, they could explode, but again, I really doubt this is the case, and I really think you're reaching man.


And I wasn't saying that was what I believed it was, simply that there were many many things in that building that could be confused for bombs, or would explode. Yes a firefighter COULD know the difference, but if you're in the lobby of a building, and you hear a low frequency boom and you have a good idea that this was a terrorist attack, which are you going to think. Bomb, or something else. Most people would think that it was a bomb.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

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.

Oh please Zaphod, you could have this same kind of praise if you could just present a few consistant points, points that can stand up to scrutiny. I'm just a fan on the sidelines for this one. A true debate athelete ignores the heckling or at least sinks the freethrow to silence the critics. Only the ones filled with self doubt will respond. But hey if you want to take your ball and go home thats your call. You would be missed I'm sure.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Would firefighters qualify as "most people," Zaphod? People that would have heard these things exploding in just about EVERY MAJOR FIRE they've ever encountered?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The explanation is nonsense. If you want to trap and kill more people, you would plant explosives on floors 10-20. You should carry your attacks during the time of day when the buildings have maximum occupancy, probably 10-noon. When the first plane hitted, most people haven't arrived at work yet.

You're telling me not one of the 19+ terrorists have this simple concept to maximize death tolls? The one that doesn't is sitting in the White House.


[edit on 16-9-2006 by tazadar]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by DickBinBush]

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!!!!



Case reopened.

Bush is stating what they learned from the terrorist. You are saying that Bush is saying that the gov't planted explosions. He doesn't say "we learned that we should plant explosivies higher up."

If the explosions were clearly high up, how do you explain the thoery of controlled demolition and the squibs all up and down the building? Tossing it out and destroying that theory?

How about the explosion in the basement? Terrorists coincidentally detonating a bomb on the same day the gov't decides to pull off the wtc attack?

your logic, if we can call it that, is not right. Read the article in full and you will see that he is talking about disripted plots and things they learned FROM THE TERRORIST.

Case closed.


Did i say he directly stated that they planted explosives? No, im not. Why the hell would he say that? I'm saying you have to read between the lines and use common sense to realize what he is IMPLYING. You clearly are not doing that.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
So just because they're trained to fight fires, they're not allowed to feel the stress and make mistakes about what they're hearing? Yes they're more highly trained to handle things than your average person is, but they're still human. They were NEVER trained to handle something on this scale. Even firefighters can make mistakes.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

There have been no failed plans to fly planes into buildings that KSM was involved in, so it wasn't a failed operation he was referring to.




Well, that is what Bush is saying, that KSM gave them info to disrupt plots about flying planes into buildings.

Who knows if this is true or not, but that is what Bush is saying.

And how exactly do you know what plans have failed or not? Is every foiled terror plot public information, or are you privy to classified information?

And instructing the operatives has nothing to do with whether or not a plan was disrupted or not.

You remember the florida plot? The London plot?

Both those plots were disrupted, but the operatives were still given instructions. Without instructions its not really much of a plot now is it.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Exactly, like the Val dude said, this is the first time they mentioned explosives. Why?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fifth Horseman
Oh please Zaphod, you could have this same kind of praise if you could just present a few consistant points, points that can stand up to scrutiny. I'm just a fan on the sidelines for this one. A true debate athelete ignores the heckling or at least sinks the freethrow to silence the critics. Only the ones filled with self doubt will respond. But hey if you want to take your ball and go home thats your call. You would be missed I'm sure.


As soon as ANYONE on EITHER side can "sink the freethrow" then I'll admit I was wrong, however there hasn't been ANY conclusive proof shown by either group. As for "taking my ball and going home" hey, sorry to have a life outside the boards, and wanting to give my family a better life than we've had lately.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join