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: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Sorry ^-^ My mistake, still a hell of a lot of fuel though. Wasting Terrorists already in the states on "Explosive Vests" would be a waste of future activity though IMHO.




posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

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


gee thanks for clearing that up.



original quote by: Dark_Seraph
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.


Mistake one: calling us sheeple... violation of T&C...please dont use insults to pad your arguement. Second yes I have seen explosions My step-father was a firefighter for 17 years(2 of which I volunteered).


original quote by: Dark_Seraph
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?


in all three of these.. the answer is yes they couldve been all planned by the govts. involved. not probable granted.. but possible none-the-less


original quote by: Dark_Seraph
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?


not needed as the ball has been rolling there for some time... but notice the difference in style in the majority of attacks in the ME.. as opposed to those in your first question...England, Spain, US. The ones carried out in the ME all the time are quick improv attacks with IED's and rocket launchers etc... hitting anything they can. The ones in the former(Eng,Sp,US) Were grand elaborate schemes. Totally different styles and targets... Here only the grand targets are at risk... but in Iraq car bombs are placed in random spots ANYWHERE. If there was a real Jihad against us ...that is exactly what you would see here in these countries... schools, gas stations, hospitals, concerts, ball games, road side bombs...etc... you would see something however small happeneing here in America on an almost daily basis.... but it has not happened.



original quote by: Dark Seraph
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
.

so let me get this straight.... since you cannot figure it out.. you say.. it doesnt matter... that is where you are wrong ... it matter very much. Using vague analogies that have absolutely no relevence to the arguement DO NOT reinforce your point... it only takes away from it.


original quote by: Dark_Seraph
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.


he never was fit to lead this country.. but thats not the point of this debate.

original quote by: Dark_Seraph
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?


And who indeed are YOU sir to question us... personal attacks unto us will not.. repeat... will not reinforce your points!!!

What we have or have not done according to your list has no bearing on our legitimacy to question the events of that day. Or anything else that we see fit.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Mods....why do you let stupid, nonsense posts like these to continue?

The statement which was quoted was entirely taken out of context to fit a totally fictional delusion.

Posters like the submitter serve no purpose on this board.......

I thought the main idea of thius board was 'Deny Ignorance'

Your site is going downhill extremely fast.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark_Seraph
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.


barf, hey, hey, barf,hey, yourself.

i have been relentlessly seeking larger truth, in the hopes that i could disseminate any findings to my fellow global villagers.

it's working.

you don't need no ticket, you just get on board.

has your el presidente ever lied to you?
has he ever driven drunk?
done coc aine?
smoked dope?
gone AWOL?
engaged in a satanic/pagan orgy?
formed a grammatically correct sentence?
ruined the reputation of YALE for guaranteeing 'scholarliness'?

your arguments are so scattered that they are not even arguments, just presumptious rhetorical spew.

hey, barf, hey, barf, hey.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Mods....why do you let stupid, nonsense posts like these to continue?

The statement which was quoted was entirely taken out of context to fit a totally fictional delusion.

Posters like the submitter serve no purpose on this board.......

I thought the main idea of thius board was 'Deny Ignorance'

Your site is going downhill extremely fast.
Well if we don't talk about things and attempt to learn from them then that is truely ingorant, deny it for once would you?

[edit on 16-9-2006 by Fifth Horseman]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Back to the discussion please

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Check it out - give your opinions.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
well if you look at it as plant the explosives higher then basement levels, like the 93 bombing, then yea it makes sense.

anyway I think this will most likely be "new information" to explain why the building collapsed. Suicide bombers went on the levels of the plane crashes in the WTC, blew themselves up to cut the upper levels off, and accidentially helped the collapse of the building, surpising even the previous orderer of 9/11 OBL.

my guess, you heard it here first.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
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."




Hmmmmm, this makes sence and would fit in with this.




The following document was published in June of 2002. If genuine, it must rank as one of the most remarkable documents in history. It purports to be a top-secret report from the German external intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) prepared with assistance from an internal German intelligence agency, the BfV. Among the most important claims it makes are the following: German intelligence detected plans for an attack by Arab extremists on the United States, to take place on September 10 or 11, 2001. Israel was aware of the plans and wished the attack to take place without hindrance.

The German ambassador informed the President of the US of the impending attacks. He thanked the ambassador and said that he already knew.

Subsequently, his administration urgently requested the suppression of information on this warning. The report elaborates that among the various reasons for the attack being encouraged by the US administration was a desire to have a pretext to attack Afghanistan to secure a pipeline route for western oil companies to export oil from the Caspian basin.


www.physics911.net...

I have something else I will be sharing later tonight AFTER I return from the Democratic meeting I am attending, as I plan to give this info to the Senators that will be there. Lets just say I received a "letter" from my oldest son's 1/2 sister that received it from "their" brother that is in Iraq. I am totally PO'd at this point




posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I appologize Tone, I must have gotten a bad taste for these controversial conspiracy's when I was continually attacked personally on my Q&A post. Thanks though. I dont remember much happening to those people...Where were you there? Just wondering.

Dark



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterRegal
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.


I already raised that point and some posters used the high floor aspect as an arguement that the gov't did this and set the explosives high to minimize casualties.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark_Seraph
I appologize Tone, I must have gotten a bad taste for these controversial conspiracy's when I was continually attacked personally on my Q&A post. Thanks though. I dont remember much happening to those people...Where were you there? Just wondering.

Dark


ohhh hold the horse....Before this gets somewhere I dont want it to be... I have seen explosions... not....THOSE explosions....lol... I was just answering your question in the broad sense.... No, I saw most of 911 from my TV set that day..I am not ,however(nor ever claimed to be) an explosives expert. My point in this arguement is why in the world the People writing Bushes speechs and interviews would use that line ... like they did. It doesnt pin Bush as admitting to the Bombs in WTC theory.. but it is one of the first mentions of explosions in buildings. Just intriguing.

Also I wasnt trying to lecture you... but I dont attack people.. so I expect people give me the same respect when debating... thats all......


Just remember the T&C and everything else is golden(no matter how much we disagree; or agree)



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Does this sound like perhaps someone, somewhere has finally found enough 'stickable' evidence that bushco feels the need to lay the groundwork for a little, future CYA?

Sure feels like it.
.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
LeftBehind,

First, I didn't see subz say this doesn't amount to anything. But I wait to see if he confirms that.

Second, I'll say this again:

KSM was involved in one plan that included planes flying into buildings...9/11. There were NO operatives involved when his plan included the 12 planes hitting U.S. interests all over the world. There were NO operatives until he was accepted into al-Qaeda and bin Laden told him to trim it down a bit. Once they came up with a workable plan it was THEN that operatives were assigned to the plan. So when KSM was off fantasizing about blowing up every tom, dick and harry on the planet - HE DID NOT HAVE OPERATIVES.

By the way he said OPERATIVES - not "trainees", not "members", not "agents", no mention of "standard operating procedure", but OPERATIVES. That is a member of an OPERATION. And as I said above, there was no working OPERATION until after he hooked up with bin Laden and bin Laden approved the final 9/11 plan and then started assigning OPERATIVES.

He was interrogated in 2003.

[edit on 9-16-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
He's talking about the plan Kalid Sheik Mohammed had for the attacks on the buildings. Here's the FULL quote of that portion of the text.


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.

www.guardian.co.uk...

And explosives designed to trap people aren't the same as you would use in a controlled demolition.


Good point, a Terrorist may have put them there. But we should wait till there's more information about the possiblity of explosives. If there is proof documented by the goverment, people with enough resources should use the Freedom of Information Act and find out this is in fact, true.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Here it is in context.


www.guardian.co.uk...

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



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



Sorry to quote the whole thing again mods but. How can you say that he wasn't talking about 9/11 when he says 9/11 in the speach? Give me a break LeftBehind.

Edit: to get rid of large unnessary quote....it's already been pointed out.

[edit on 9/16/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I can't read all nine pages right now. But really quick, I am a 9/11 truth advocate myself, but he never said the WTC buildings. He said explosives in buildings as he was discussing the loads of briefings he gets from threats on america. That informant gave a lot of info...

AAC



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Well Griff, if you read the whole thing, you'll see that the speech is about him defending the domestic spying program.

I didn't realize that mentioning 9-11 once, makes the whole speech about 9-11.

According to this logic, most of his speeches are only about 9-11, which is plainly not correct.

He talks about disrupted terror plots, then gives examples.

Operatives in a disrupted plot still remain operatives. This whole operative, not operative, is merely a semantic argument and really doesn't make any difference. Whether he calls them plotters, terrorists, or operatives, their name doesn't change because the plot was foiled.

But regardless of any of that, regardless of whether or not you agree with me that he is speaking about disrupted plots, I think we can all agree that he is not saying what is implied by the OP.

He is not admitting that explosives were in the WTC.

It is much too ambiguous for that.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

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 context with 9/11 the people were trapped above ie: he is implying this is what happened. Though he does not mention "WTC" specifically, it are the only buildings
on 9/11 people could be trapped "above"....



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Everytime Bush talks about buildings or planes he is not necesarily talking about 9-11.

Nor does he mentioning it suddenly make everything he say afterwards about 9-11.

Bush is not afraid to directly talk about 9-11. He does so in this speach, he makes it very plain becaue he actually calls it 9-11.

Please does anyone have another example where he is specifically talking about 9-11 and uses vague language like this?

Plane attacks on buildings inside the US?

Has he ever used such ambiguous terms to describe 9-11?

I don't recall it, however I can recall lots of vague language when he talks about disrupted plots. Or vague terror warnings.

As he was doing in this speech.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Well, what is he talking about then leftbehind?

He Said 9-11 for crying out loud. That isn't ambiguous.


Seriously though, enlighten us as to what he was refering to if not 9-11.
No wonder you can't convince people of anything, hell there's still people trying to say the world is flat and the center of the universe.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join