Bush accidently reveals explosives Were Used on 9-11

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
He didn't "accidentally admit" anything. Cherry picking irrelevant inconsistencies proves nothing. You have to have harder evidence than that.

What could be harder evidence than him actually saying it?

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
He didn't "accidentally admit" anything. Cherry picking irrelevant inconsistencies proves nothing. You have to have harder evidence than that.

What could be harder evidence than him actually saying it?

Maybe having him actually say it instead of it being a possible slip of the tongue?

reply to post by News And History


He says nothing of the kind. He never mentions 9-11 on the video. He never says WE planted explosives. He is talking about information obtained about terrorists.

I am no Bush fanboy, but what is alleged in the OP is not what is on the video.

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
Maybe having him actually say it instead of it being a possible slip of the tongue?

He did actually say it. You would like it to be a slip of the tounge but it is a clear statement. Watch it again.

reply to post by groingrinder


What building were the terrorists talking about that he was referring to?

reply to post by groingrinder


Yeah, that's what I'm saying too. I for one think Bush is a complete moron and that Iraq really shows how intelligent he isn't.

reply to post by evil incarnate


Nevertheless, it's still possible it was nothing more than a slip of the tongue. Because of that possibility you can't say he admitted to anything.

Simonshack uses this technique in September Clues when an anchorman goes "Are you on the north side where the mi- the plane made contact?" Should we then say that the anchorman knew it was a missile and almost slipped up? Or should we say that it truly was a slip up because of the chaos of that day?

I honestly think that cherry picking inconsistent statements is hurting the Truth Movement's cause.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by groingrinder

 

What building were the terrorists talking about that he was referring to?

I am not privy to the intelligence he was referring to in the video. The first words out of his mouth are "........described the design of planned attacks on buildings in the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out." It sounds like he is talking about a terrorist cell exposed through intelligence, not 9-11.

Originally posted by groingrinder

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by groingrinder

 

What building were the terrorists talking about that he was referring to?

I am not privy to the intelligence he was referring to in the video. The first words out of his mouth are "........described the design of planned attacks on buildings in the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out." It sounds like he is talking about a terrorist cell exposed through intelligence, not 9-11.

What is the point of the speach if not to inform us? How about you do just a tad bit of research and get the context there. I think you will be ever so pleasantly surprised.

P.S. can you just take a guess at what buildings he might have been talking about? Remember what intelligence they had about specific targets in the U.S. at the time of the speech as well as the PDBs he was given up to that point.

or.......you can just stick by yer good ol buddy jorje and continue to assume it must have been any building at all and he had no idea what he was talking about. Just one random sentence fragment and that was it. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Personally, I don't like sand in my eyes.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by evil incarnate]

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
Nevertheless, it's still possible it was nothing more than a slip of the tongue. Because of that possibility you can't say he admitted to anything.

Why? What reason is there to assume it was a slip of the tounge? Wishfull thinking? Other than that, there is not ONE reason to see it as a slip of the tounge. He does not back up and correct it does he? He keeps on stuttering.

Simonshack uses this technique in September Clues when an anchorman goes "Are you on the north side where the mi- the plane made contact?" Should we then say that the anchorman knew it was a missile and almost slipped up? Or should we say that it truly was a slip up because of the chaos of that day?

I honestly think that cherry picking inconsistent statements is hurting the Truth Movement's cause.

You do not see the difference between a man who corrects himself, even catches himself midword and corrects himself and a man who makes a statement in a written speech and does nothing to correct it? There is no hope for you then I am afraid.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Why? What reason is there to assume it was a slip of the tounge? Wishfull thinking? Other than that, there is not ONE reason to see it as a slip of the tounge. He does not back up and correct it does he? He keeps on stuttering.

It is possible that he did.

You do not see the difference between a man who corrects himself, even catches himself midword and corrects himself and a man who makes a statement in a written speech and does nothing to correct it? There is no hope for you then I am afraid.

You're right, good point.

This is an old video for those that have been following this...but one of the better and worth bringing up again.

Why do people still worship Bush like a malevolent God?

What on God's green earth makes anyone think Bush (or ANYONE in his administration) had their $#!+ together in 2008... Much less 2001.

They hadn't a clue. And proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt REPEATEDLY.

I think everyone should have to work for the federal government for one year before they are 30 years old...

I GUARANTEE you, after that, no one would consider that bumblefjuck bureaucracy a prime suspect in anything. Anything that required precision and secrecy anyway.

i dislike bush big time. however, i heard nothing that would lead me to believe he was talking about sept. 11.

hell, have the time he does not know what he is talking about.... how are we supposed to if he does not lol?

Originally posted by anonamousantichrist
i dislike bush big time. however, i heard nothing that would lead me to believe he was talking about sept. 11.

hell, have the time he does not know what he is talking about.... how are we supposed to if he does not lol?

Then I am genuinely curious what you think he is talking about. I hope the other fella speeds it up with getting the rest of the video or doing a little research but in the meantime, have a guess?

The only way this implies anything sinister beyond someone flying planes into a building is if the planes weren't used as explosives.

I am pretty sure they were. The mastermind confessed to it, there is video evidence of it. Some people say there were no planes, i haven't seen any convincing evidence of it.

...sorry if this has been said already,
look I want Bush and friends to pay for what they did, can't stand him, never did.....BUT....
I watched that address or press conference when it happened back then and I know that he was talking about... what the "terrorist" had planned to do. He was trying to support the argument that since they had "intelligence" that the evil doer's wanted to blow up the buildings that it supported the eventual attack they did in fact (their facts) carried out.
I assure you that Bush did not misspeak or slip, (he can't read worth a damn) but he didn't say in any way or any manner or imply or anything else, that the towers were brought down by planted explosives.
Yeah, I still think they were in there.....but the debate about this video should be over....check any of my other posts over the years if you think that I have any love for Bush. You will also see that I never let my objectivity get over taken by my subjective beliefs.

Originally posted by jprophet420
The only way this implies anything sinister beyond someone flying planes into a building is if the planes weren't used as explosives.

I am pretty sure they were. The mastermind confessed to it, there is video evidence of it. Some people say there were no planes, i haven't seen any convincing evidence of it.

Well we all know how we got the 'mastermind' to 'confess' now don't we.

I am still waiting someone to give me a good answer as to what Bush could have been referring to if not the World Trade Center.

Anyone?

Can someone find the complete original speech and compare it to this 30 second clip?

A comparison would prove without a doubt what is being claimed.

There is a thread on the front page accusing fox news of editing clips to further their agenda. Some who have posted here supporting this clip are the same ones who have posted against Fox for doing the same thing that is going on in this thread.

Post the whole speech and then we can see what the truth is.

reply to post by jd140


I would really love to see the entire context too but I am pretty sure that even if he says WTC, most of the people defending him will just have a new excuse for him so why even bother? They will say slip of the tounge, mistake, whatever.

Fox blatantly lies. I could care less if they take things out of context or cut them short of the facts that might change the meaning. They lie. Is this clip a lie? Please someone let us see the whole thing.

Of course in the meantime.....

I am still waiting for all the brains that are so sure he is NOT talking about the WTC to explain to me what they do think he is talking about. Why is everyone so fast to defend Bush, right up until someone actually corners them and asks them to explain fully how they could say such things.

I found this in an article about CIA interrogation. Seems to be related. They're talking about info gained from the KSM interrogations.

full article here.
internetscofflaw.com...



During questioning, KSM also provided many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans. For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States, and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows.

KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda’s efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda’s efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent — and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM’s arrest. In fact, we did not know about Yazid’s role in al Qaeda’s anthrax program. Information from Yazid then helped lead to the capture of his two principal assistants in the anthrax program. Without the information provided by KSM and Yazid, we might not have uncovered this al Qaeda biological weapons program, or stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.