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 to the use of explosives in 911

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
jprophet.....

Bush is not talking about September 11th. Read the entire speech.




posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
WHy do you want me to explain if you already know what was said.

I stated he wasnt talking about 9/11, I also stated that it was taking about another situation.


Or something.... Anyway this speech had nothing to do wit 9/11 so the carrier should have made it better stated what was being talked about instead of stating that it was about 9/11 or whatever.

And yes I am part of the truth movement. but i see nothing with this video.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
jprophet.....

Bush is not talking about September 11th. Read the entire speech.


I did, he is. I researched the person in question in his speech and quoted it. The person he is mentioning admits to planning 911. He confesses to 31 crimes including planning 911, and none of those 31 involve bombing of skyscrapers, and DO include plotting to repeat the 911 MO on other skyscrapers.

i.a.cnn.net...



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Alex Jones stated this guy was a patsy forced to confess to those things. I dont know if i believe it, but i dont put it past the obvious hating and fascist balding and fat police forces of america. Hey your good godly people, you can beat people with sticks, and yell at innocent americans protesting evil losers.. your pretty damn good there pi*, just keep believing the lie.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
if this is true, then why even smash planes into the towers? It all seems a little fishy doesn't it? Just like that video in Florida when the attacks happen and Bush seems to know all to well what has happened.... If they had explosives what is the point of staging an attack? Doesn't make sense!?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by parry noid
if this is true, then why even smash planes into the towers?...


Because they had to have someone to blame it on. If they had just used explosives then EVERYONE would be suspicious. It would be almost impossible for a middle eastern terrorist group to get into the towers so they could plant explosives. But a group of westerners who had help from the inside on the other hand could do it quit easily.

It's not the first time 'they' tried it either...

The FBI allowed the 1993 WTC bombing to happen



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
as been stated before...

no he didn't.

Yes, he said the word.... explosives, however he ws referring to the aircraft that had hit the towers.

For all he or anyone else knew at the time of the impact, the terrorist could have had bombs on board as well.

Thats it, no conspiracy...




And what type of evidence do you have to support your theory?



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
that was a nice find Anok, thanks. I would really like to get my hands on those transcripts. As the one attorney pointed out at the end of the clip, the tapes arent really useable in defense because they only show that the FBI didnt stop the bombing.

I would imagine however that the FBI itself would be liable for conspiracy to commit murder if they could be proven to have known about but not stopped the attacks. We never heard about that trial so my bet is the tapes are nowhere to be found.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
A couple things here...

Where is the rest of this speech? I would like to know if he is in fact talking about the WTC. ( it appears so)


So it appears.



IMO ... he is not talking about the twin towers... if he were talking about them... why didn't he say "the twin towers?"


Well "CaptainObvious" why should he have had to specify the Twin Towers? He was talking about Khalid Sheik Mohammed and mentioned the plan to have the explosives "high enough" so that people couldn't escape. What other targets by KSM fit the profile of explosives placed "high enough"? The 1993 WTC bombing the explosives were placed in the BASEMENT! The Bali bombing consisted of a backpack suicide bomber inside on the MAIN FLOOR and a car bomb on the STREET! So what other bombing attack masterminded by KSM fits the profile? (the "obvious" answer is none save the 9/11 attacks).



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
jprophet.....

Bush is not talking about September 11th. Read the entire speech.


Bush is talking about September 11th. I read the entire speech.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Yes... the entire conspiracy to get the US at war with the Middle East was suddenly destroyed when Bush mispoke in a speech.

seriously guys, think about this a little more.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
www.whitehouse.gov...


For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings 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 high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping


Just like using the words PULL IT as means of demolition of WTC7.
He was talking about the planes explosives when hitting at the top of the building, not when terrorists jumped out of the plane and plant explosives as the planes went crashing.




posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
Yes... the entire conspiracy to get the US at war with the Middle East was suddenly destroyed when Bush mispoke in a speech.

seriously guys, think about this a little more.


Hey, I can (possibly) buy the "Bush misspoke" argument. But the lame "this speech wasn't about 9/11" argument being thrown about by "CaptainObvious" is beyond the pale. Maybe Bush thought "planes" = "explosives" since the planes did explode. (That's weak too, but I'm trying to be generous here). But NO OTHER attack attributed to Khalid Sheik Mohammed fits the description of having "explosives high enough to trap" people except 9/11.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
For this first time, and most likely the last, I agree with Captain Obvious. It seems like Bush is talking about how this guy planned a bunch of attacks (including 911) on different buildings and this is how they are supposed to be carried out. This is why he says it is useful information for protecting the people blablabla.

Either way it doesn't make much sense IMO. Why would they want explosives as high as possible if they are bombing other buildings or why would this be helpful information for protecting the people if it was about 911? (it already happened)

As a truther I think it would be best to just discard this 'evidence' because there is not much we can do with it anyways (even tho I still believe he wasn't talking about 911). It's too disputable to be worth anything.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Yes the goverment are involved in a lot of conspiracies, but i think you have looked too hard in to these speech and are starting to see what you want to see, though not impossible, even bush would not slip up like that.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Even so that still doesnt explain why the entire buildings central columns collapsed. There's still too much not being said.... The only way we will ever find out the truth is A)The gov;t coming forward... or B)Aliens who were able to see this happening will bring disclosure. Since Both A, and B are next to never happening we will never have anything more to go on Unless Bush Slips up in a speech.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Well someone at the top of our US Government is slipping up BIG TIME.
The CIA/NSA confirmed a couple of weeks ago that they know where
Osama BinLaden is, but can't get to him because the President of
Pakistan has made that section of his country off-limits to the U.S.
Military.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON?!?
HAVE THEY LOST THEIR NERVE?!!?!

We should tell the President of Pakistan (Musariff?) that we will cut
off all aid and blockade his country (air and sea) until he allows us to
come in and get this terrorist. Heck..forget that idea. It will give Osama
too much time to escape while the politicians debate this. BEST IDEA:
Since Pres. Bush is near the end of his second term, he needs to send
in a highly trained team to Pakistan covertly and grab Osama. I'm
certain that Bush wants to get nab OBL before he leaves office and
have him interrogated using the current techniques. No former President
would want to have as part of their legacy that he/she couldn't get to
someone who murdered over 3,000 US citizens because another human
being forbid him from doing so. How rediculous would that look!



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Personally I choose not to pay too much attention to what the political heads are saying. We know they are responsible for 9/11 and we know they would lie to send us on false tracks.

That bush is lying about having seen the first strike is very curious, yes indeed. But I prefer to rely on the physical evidence which can not lie as much.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join