Bush admits there were explosives in WTC!

I just checked the speech on realplayer and he specifically says "the" so it
is not a 'transcript' error...

4min 35secs into video..

Originally posted by LeftBehind

If he meant 9-11 why didnt he say "For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of the attacks on Semptember 11th."?

[edit on 16-9-2006 by LeftBehind]

If I meant to go to the store to get some food to my wife - would I reference specifically what store?

I think you're looking for a reason for everyone's assertions about what Bush had to say to be nill LeftBehind. You're wanting it to specifically reference 9/11 or else it isn't simply referencing it at all.

You can take a look at the surrounding sentence structure, as Valhall has and make the reasonable assertion he was directly looking at the 9/11 disaster and with the quote "instructed to" with references to the explosives, you've got your cat out of the bag.

I'm not saying your argument is pointless, but I applaud you for trying to hold up and argue reasonably.

However I believe you're correct in your assertions Left Behind, he was talking about disrupted terror plots, but Valhall has looked deeper through the topic and is providing more interesting background information in regards to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Great. Thanks zren.

Maybe since he's on his way out, his bosses, you know who , have given him a crap deal, or have begun to cut ties, and he's pouty, so he said it for spite.

Actually if you look at the surrounding sentence structure he is talking about plots that info from KSM helped disrupt.

To paraphrase:

KSM gave us info that disrupted plots, for example he described the design of plane attacks on building in the US.

I don't see how disrupted plots tie into 9-11. Nor do I see the relevance of this quote to 9-11.

Thank you Masisoar, at least I'm not the only one.



[edit on 16-9-2006 by LeftBehind]

Because if the info came from Zhalid, it had to pertain to 9/11. According the 9/11 commission info. It really isn't a difficult concept.

Watch the video, at about 4:20. You can see Bush is stumbling. He is lost in the written speech. I do not believe the speech writers put this sentence in.

"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 tra...pped above from escaping."

Bush was looking for this sentence.

"He gave us information that helped uncover al-Qaida cells' efforts to obtain biological weapons."

This information is staggering in it's potential. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

In the absence of any qualifying statements from President Bush all we can deduce from this speech is that KSM informed the Americans that he instructed bombs to be used. Since President Bush was equivocal in his presentation of this nugget of intel we dont know whether the plan was successful...yet.

My take on this is that it's part of the groundwork to explain away some of the highly damning conspiracy theories that are gaining immense popularity. We will eventually learn of explosives that went off, but the probable irony will be that the explosives were only learnt of recently thanks to these interrogation techniques and secret CIA prisons.

Kill two birds with one stone, kill the conspiracy theory and vindicate the secret CIA prisons and harsh interrogation techniques. But that's just my guess, lets see how this pans out as they've left themselves an out if they judge the reaction to this toe in the water comment to be unfavourable, hence Bush's equivocation.

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.

In this context.. by itself, yes I don't see any blatent slip of the mouth, just plans they had, but it doesn't mean they were necessarily carried out. The only reference in this context are to plans they had that they were instructed to carry out.

But props still to Valhall for bringing up that background information on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Really interesting.

[edit on 9/16/2006 by Masisoar]

To follow up on what Masisoar said.

The only other time Bush referrences KSM is in a direct link to 911
Ill highlight this for the third time...

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.

Direct referrence between KSM and 911.. so yeah, Id say that the earlier referrence was the same.

general point
Why in goodnesses name would the speech writers put it like this....one way or the other? Its not as if the White House is oblivious to the CT audience's growth. Nor would they fail to realize that this sentence would be disected. So why? Why say it like this

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.

I cant just chalk this up to bushspeak; there is no stammering, no stuttering; this was meant to be said just like it is. But WHY?

sorry leftbehind your arguement doesnt stand:

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.

first paragraph talks about bringing the people behind 9/11 to justice. CLEARLY mentioning 9/11.

second paragraph talks about HOW to go about questioning terrorists.

Third paragraph, ONE PARAGRAPH PAST A DIRECT MENTION TO 9/11, questioning KSM leads to valuable information AND....AND meaning not directly connected to the valuable information he just mentions, has helped disrupt terror plots.
if this valuable information lead to the disruption of terror plots it should have been stated as this:
"questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information WHICH has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States."
though it may only be one word, it connects the two DIRECTLY which is what you have been inplying. This was not what happened though.

your whole arguement this has no connection to 9/11 is flawed. He mentions the people behind 9/11, next paragraph states how they question them, then he mentions the man behind the 9/11 attacks and about the explosives. sorry, your arguement wont hold.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by grimreaper797]

ANOTHER point to bring - these past quotes:

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

-Rumsfeld

I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

-Rumsfeld

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

- Dubbya Bush


-----------------------------------

THOSE quotes are more easily looked at as interesting and suspicious rather than this.

If you want to reference the government as acknowledging this happened - then why didn't the NIST use this as reasonable data to explain away the explosions heard prior/during the plane impact and for other issues. It would be a great weapon - but they didn't.

Again, why would he talk about disrupted terror plots, say a few sentences about 9-11 without specifically mentioning 9-11, and then continue down with bullet points about disrupted plots?

He says that KSM gave them info on disrupted plots, and then he gives examples.

Also again, why would he say "buildings inside the US" when he meant the WTC. To me it is clear that he is talking about disrupted plots, not successful ones.

The whole premise of the speech is to get support for his domestic spying and CIA prison camps. It makes sense for him to talk about vague plots that they disrupted with info supposedly obtained from those sources.

It makes no sense to talk about 9-11 in that context.

Nor does it make any sense that he has no problem saying 9-11 in other parts of the speech, but has to use vague words to describe it in a different part.

In context the quote has nothing to do with 9-11.

Maybe because NIST didn't HAVE this information for thier report. Either KSM hadn't given it up yet, or he had, and it hadn't been passed on to NIST. Interagency communication is a joke a lot of the time.

Okay, and what's stopping them from adding that to their report...?

left behind did you even read what I wrote. Please, go back and read it. no more then 2 paragraphs before he makes A DIRECT REFERENCE to 9/11. read it this time please.

Originally posted by Masisoar
Okay, and what's stopping them from adding that to their report...?

How do you know they won't? If this is new information that they just got, then it'll be 6 or 8 months before they do. Do you know how long it takes to alter a government report? It's a whole lot easier to get your pilots license, than it is to alter some government reports.

Lets hope so for their sake. Proponents of this supporting that it actually happened within the WTCs will be fung-dizzled with happiness .

Or if not then it just goes to show it didn't happen.

honestly though. They even say later in the article

in this case, we questioned people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we believe ordered the attacks on 9/11

they say this guy is the guy they believe ordered the attacks on 9/11. no direct link to 9/11? this guy name keeps coming up when they mention 9/11, so why shouldn't I think thats what they are talking about when they mention the information they got out of him?