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: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
ok well lets think about it, put explosives high enough in the building. (first couple floors) to stop people from escaping in the world trade center, which a fire was going on above, so you would want people stuck in the building. or some other plot that we have no information about, thus those paragraphs leaving us in the dark.

Why even mention the explosives thing if its a plot we never heard about or never witnessed?


And if it was the WTC, and they were there, how did so many people escape from so high up in the buildings?




posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
That's just the premise, the explosives plot was just that, a plot, whether it was carried out or not, who's to say! Like Zaphod has talked about, it might take a while to substantiate this if true, and then apply it to the NIST report. And oh man, if that happens.. talk about a field day.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Zaphod freethrow=1 POINT not the win
(fanfare in the background, deep announcers voice) well here we have Zaphod at the line, lets see what the kid has:

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.


oh a complete BRICK!
just one example shall I show more?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Why even mention the explosives thing if its a plot we never heard about or never witnessed?


Because he is attempting to justify his domestic spying program. Who knows if he's even telling the truth about any of those things?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that it's unacceptable to read sources that say the exact same thing that I said, and quote them without realizing that they were wrong. Now that I know that I have to be 100% right all the time I'll be more careful. I'm the first to admit that I'm not a building person. The only things I know about construction of buildings is what I'm reading in these threads, from sources posted. I don't have rules and regulations memorized or even know where to find them like some people do. Now, you throw some of the people in these threads into the aviation forum, and I'll sink every freethrow or three pointer you can want to see.

By the way, nice job of "staying on the sidelines" and ONLY pointing out the things that I said that I was wrong about.


[edit on 9/16/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Terrorists most likely DID get access to the towers. This has been discussed for 5 years now and been poopoo'd by people who are hell bent on denying that more than just the planes and fires brought down the towers. Rodriguez stated he saw some of the hijackers in the tower prior to 9/11, and there are the "Tennessee 12" some of whom had WTC passes for 9/5/01.

[edit on 9-16-2006 by Valhall]


Agreed. for those who ask how that proves US involvement? or say maybe they did, but who do the terrorists work for? their terror cells were founded and trained by the CIA....they probably had easy access during those "security" evacuation drills at the towers that all the workers said they were having days or weeks prior to 9/11. Who ran security until 9/11...marvin bush... i shake my head in amazement sometimes that you give somebody a puzzle with almost all the pieces put together for them already, and they still look at it like they cant tell what the picture is. Then u finish the puzzle for someone and they turn and look away rather than acknowledge it. Denial is a tool for people use in place of courage. "patriotism" is a blanket in which to hide from shame. But if someone can have the courage to admit that someone or some organization they believed in or are a part of did something wrong, then we have a "conspiracy theory". wow. this is not the same world i was born into



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Don't get locked into thinking that since he mentioned planes hitting buildings it HAS TO BE the WTC and 9/11.

Quite so. The possible purpose of this whole "explosive" bombshell, pardon the pun, is to test the waters to observe the public reaction.

Anyone with half a brain cell could predict that the President mentioning the word "explosives" in the same speech as references to 9/11 would pique the interest of 9/11 conspiracy theorists world wide. Yet, since having the President changing the official line after 5 years of dogmatic adherence without covering every base would be tantamount to political suicide, they float the topic in a manner which could be quite easily rebuffed (cue Leftbehind's interpretation) if it gets shot down as ludicrous and scandalous.

If, after monitoring the public fall out from this "explosives" revelation, the story of explosives being used by terrorists on 9/11 stands up to scrutiny, we might see some more concrete assertions from this administration.

This is a feeler comment, nothing more.

[edit on 16/9/06 by subz]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Marvin Bush had NOTHING to do with security on 9/11. He was with another company that did insurance for the WTC, but he left the security company in 2000.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Why even mention the explosives thing if its a plot we never heard about or never witnessed?


Because he is attempting to justify his domestic spying program. Who knows if he's even telling the truth about any of those things?


Aint that the truth...Who EVER knows when he is telling the truth.

And I will concede the point that it is not provable that Bush admits to explosives in WTC. But the use of the word explosives with mingling insertions of 911 really does make you think just what the hell is running through the speech writers heads. Especially if he ISNT talking about 911 in that statement. If he was talking about WTC... then he has some serious explaining to do.

If he meant the planes as "the explsosives"... then maybe he needs to fire the speech writer who wrote this.
If he meant some "other" plot(one that nobody knows about) then he should back that one up(just like we have to do here). After all its not like Bush has lied before...



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The white house is starting to realize that the truth movement on 911 is getting too close and they are only going to get closer yet.

Now is the time to start some new diversions and we got the ususal crowd here eager to take part in the operation.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Firstly we have to get our heads around the fact that these pilots were supposedly new to flying yet manged to pull off some amazing flying skills to attack these buildings especially the Pentagon.

Explosives being set off is a possibility but how many stairwells would need to be disabled in order to prevent people from getting down. The amount of men needed to do this in both towers at the same time setting off their suicide vests. Im suprised no one noticed all the men enter the buildings. I would expect you would need a minimum of 4-6 people in each building to acheive this.

If the explosive were pre planted by covert agencies then no doubt the pilots would have been ordered to hit certain levels/floors of the towers. This again is a incredible feat for a man who has never flown a commercial airliner flying in at 500mph in a enviroment he is not used to from that particular angle.

To have demolition charges in place for the purpose of bringing the building down is the only possibility of any explosives being used. How would they be planted? well we all know about the power downs in the previous weeks and funnily enough didnt Bushes brother have a contract covering the security of WTC which funnily enough that contract ended on September 11th 2001

Im on the fence regarding 911 but there is so many possibilities regarding this explosive thing



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
ALso, in that same quote notice the concerted effort of distancing themselves from the Osama did 911...


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.


Gawwd I am loving this part more and more every time I use it. There is now 3 people mentioned for the planning... none of which are OBL...

Again Mr. Bush...thanks for clearing that up....jack ass


way to twist this into a distancing himself from Osama. He says they questioned people who were involved in the planning of the attacks. Osama wasn't named, not to distance himself from the man but simply because Osama isn't in custody and, therefore, hasn't been questioned.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Of course the contract ended Sept 11th. Why would they continue it past that day? The exact quote was "the day the towers came down." Not "ended on Sept 11th." And as I said in the post above Marvin Bush was no longer with the security company in 2000. He went to work for one of the many insurance companies that covered the buildings.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur


way to twist this into a distancing himself from Osama. He says they questioned people who were involved in the planning of the attacks. Osama wasn't named, not to distance himself from the man but simply because Osama isn't in custody and, therefore, hasn't been questioned.



I believe the words "Government Complicity" come to mind when worrying about why Osama has not been caught yet but everyone else near him or linked have managed to.
I mean.. he was on dialysis and was incredibly weak from what the government has talked about.

How can you expect to maneuver him that much while being "hunted" and it's suprising that the government has no caught this man considering the power it can utilize, militarily and financially.. to get what they need.

It's like trying to chase after a goat with a broken leg in the rocky mountains, with infared vision, satellite surveillance, aircraft/drone surveilliance and a number of sources that can point you in the right direction for the right amount of money.

And we "supposeably" found Saddam Hussein in a hole under a house.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by TONE23
ALso, in that same quote notice the concerted effort of distancing themselves from the Osama did 911...


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.


Gawwd I am loving this part more and more every time I use it. There is now 3 people mentioned for the planning... none of which are OBL...

Again Mr. Bush...thanks for clearing that up....jack ass


way to twist this into a distancing himself from Osama. He says they questioned people who were involved in the planning of the attacks. Osama wasn't named, not to distance himself from the man but simply because Osama isn't in custody and, therefore, hasn't been questioned.



sorry I wasnt trying to "twist it".... more like A side observation. Nowhere in the enirety of the speech is OBL mentioned. The only thing that made OBL even pop into my head was the following line:


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


OBL is one of these "orchestrators" is he not?.... But, I see your point... about custody and that being the relevent link as to why he didnt metion him here. But this did jump out at me as maybe a part of a more concerted effort to push Binny into the backround(for whatever reason).



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Bombs = Planes
Explosives = Jet Fuel
Lots and Lots of Jet Fuel.

Why do sheeple seem to think that a couple of fully fueled 747's wouldnt be able to burn out a building? Have you ever seen an explosion? Not a Hollywood one, those dont count. We are saying that terrorists, whether that day or a few before, planted explosives that didnt explode (I dont remember seeing any other Demo explosions on the news after the planes hit, just a lot of fire, smoke, and people) because there is no way they flew those planes accurately enough to hit near any explosions that would have been detonated in the same instant that the planes hit. Lets say your a cell of terrorists, ok? You have this huge plan to fly Aircraft into two of New Yorks prized buildings, would you like to have the whole thing blown because one of your guys got caught by the 70 year old rent-a-cop in the lobby trying to bring sticks of Dynomite into the tower? They tried regular explosives before and the towers didnt fall then, they wanted the big sha-bang! this time.

Off topic a bit but is it true people actually think that the US Government actually set up 9/11 intentionally? Wouldnt it be safe to say then that, England did the same thing with their Subway Attacks? Or maybe all of the Terrorist activity in Lebenon, Isreal, Egypt, and many of the other middle eastern countries were all staged by their governments? Seems so, because Americans Killing Americans is the best way to look at it. Maybe they wernt middle eastern men at all, maybe it was a couple of tennis players, a handful of rednecks and santa clause? Hey maybe we are all living in a huge matrix! Just like in the movies! Why have reason? Makes no sence. If there were extra explosives in that tower do you think it really mattered? Who cares? It went down, thats like saying that there was a gasious woman on one of the planes that added to the inferno. If President Bush hadnt gone with this war against Terrorist all over the world, you same folks would be complaining that he didnt do anything and he wasnt fit to lead our country. Am I wrong? Some of you live on this site just to argue, because you can, I could say the sky is blue and you would tell me it wasnt, give me links that tried to prove it, and you wouldnt be turned by anything said after. Behind your computer you can say whatever you want without repercusion. What are you doing to support your country in possitive ways? Anything? How many of you enlisted in the armed services after we were attacked? How many of you are still enlisted? How many of you are to old to enlist or Re-enlist but wished with all of your might you could? When was the last time you gave blood? When was the last time you tried to support someone that was over in Iraq? Or Afganastan? Or the wounded in Germany? Are you helping? Or hurting? Who did you vote for last time? I bet more than half you complaining about our president voted for him. Thats some food for your brains to munch around.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And as I said in the post above Marvin Bush was no longer with the security company in 2000. He went to work for one of the many insurance companies that covered the buildings.


So what? A lot of the work done on the Towers was done immediately after the 1993 bombing, which was precisely when Marvin Bush came in with his security company. The company itself doesn't even have a very clean track record if you look up some of the infamous security breaches and etc. associated with it.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark_Seraph
Bombs = Planes
Explosives = Jet Fuel
Lots and Lots of Jet Fuel.

Why do sheeple seem to think that a couple of fully fueled 747's wouldnt be able to burn out a building?



Couple maybe - 747s are a lot larger too than the 767s used, but WTCs didn't obviously fall after the impacts. Before this topic goes off.. topic.

Anyways.. back to the PARAGRAPH ANALYSIS.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that it's unacceptable to read sources that say the exact same thing that I said, and quote them without realizing that they were wrong. Now that I know that I have to be 100% right all the time I'll be more careful.
good, it helps your cause

I'm the first to admit that I'm not a building person. The only things I know about construction of buildings is what I'm reading in these threads, from sources posted. I don't have rules and regulations memorized or even know where to find them like some people do.
me neither, I'm new at posting and very slow and clunky

Now, you throw some of the people in these threads into the aviation forum, and I'll sink every freethrow or three pointer you can want to see.
oh so you can't fight em here so you want to fight em over there, sounds just like Dubya!!


By the way, nice job of "staying on the sidelines" and ONLY pointing out the things that I said that I was wrong about.
well thats what a good opposing FAN should do, no? I can't wait to see you shoot again (charging laser pointer batteries). I stay out because I cannot say it any better than Valhall and crew, who needs redundancy right?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but the context of the quote and what you're claiming makes no sense, even what Bush said made no sense. If I were a terrorist, I would want to put explosives on the LOWER floors to trap as much people as I can. I'm not someone who believes this consipiracy BS, but I'm just trying to point out a flaw.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join