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 says explosives used on 9/11

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Follow the link to hear Bush admit explosives were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
This is just confirming what we all already know.

www.disclose.tv...





posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Yupp, it's what he clearly said.

Good find!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
donno...he was reading so for sure we have to rule out the accident so he might be refering to something else



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
That guy used to be president!?!When he starts going senile in his dotterage,I wonder what sorts of things he'll spew outa his pie hole.Does he still wear that radio thing on his back?He needs a new programmer if they're letting this stuff out.OR is it a part of a ploy?Let the masses know for sure how much they've been screwed over and lied to right before opening the FEMA camps.This way the masses will be having cognitive dissonance shock and will not be able to act.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by orby1976
 


You really can't make a whole lot out of Bush's statements or comments given his general inarticulate speech and butchering of the English language. Based on his body language, I think he either got lost his place in the prepared text or misread what was there and just blundered on through.

Of course there is the possibility that some staffer typed "explosives" rather than "explosion" and W got to that point in the text and read it anyway thinking "Dang! It says explosives here! I always thought it was some airplanes. Or at least that's what Condi said. I think. I gotta stop listening to Toby Keith on my iPod during those briefing thingies."

[edit on 3-9-2009 by metamagic]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Useless.
Won't make a hen out of a feather. That could be taken out of context.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Dude that is unbelievable! I can't believe he just said that!
And most of all I can't believe people are defending him!


[edit on 3-9-2009 by MOTT the HOOPLE]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
What the hell? Is this real?

"He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point high enough to prevent people, trapped from above to stop escaping"

Very strange.. however I wouldn't call it anything solid until you heard the ENTIRE interview. Probably taken a lot out of context..



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
It's obvious that he's talking about a "terrorist" operative and what that operative told them.

I personally believe that explosives WERE used, however, propaganda such as this video which is taken out of context does not help with the effort to prove such. It decreases the credibility of those who are trying to prove it and it actually could have been put out by a disinformation agent. Don't fall for this one.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I see a huge difference in response to things like this depending on the age of the ATS sign up.
People from 2009 are going "Holy Crap -- Fry him"

People from 2008 have a bit less stance towards an attack.

2007 like myself.. jaded from all the BS and say "find the true context, the actual text written he was supposed to be reading..

2006 and before.. generally won't even speak because of how silly this is due to the complete lack of basis..

...

In other words, state a case, not just random ramblings if you are an OP.

b



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE
 


Yeah, its a shame really, that people don't think things out.

I admit this could have been a freudian slip, but the chance is rather small.

1. the jet fuel was used as an explosive.
2. Even if the conspiracy goes deeper than the the government story either knows or admits, this was part of the plan all along, for the fuel tanks to have enough fuel in them to cause much damage.
3. Bush was quite the well spoken debater pre-911. Post 911 I cant hold it against ANYONE who would be nervous to address the world, "in on it" or not.

I hate having to defend Bush like that as I am not a Bush fan, but making biased irrelevant judgements kills any credibility "the truth movement" might have.

And finally, even if it was a freudian slip, it could have been from reading about the CT's.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
bushs butchered verbiage:
www.whitehouse.gov... or here

“The bill I have proposed ((blah blah snip))

“((torture good blah snip)) questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ((torture works snip blah )) .

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.

Looks like rule of law respecting world police torturing a guy our govt says is bad, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), resulted in the divulgence of a "valuable" tactic "operatives" were directed to use re: "attacks" on US buildings.

The govt says al-qaeda is responsible for all of 9/11 and KSM, the 9/11 planner, said their tactic for attacking US "buildings" involved "operatives" and "explosives" placed "high"... then bush talks about it in tortured past tense as if it already happened; "..had been instructed..", "...instructed to ensure that the explosives went off.."

Like cheney letting slip "what happened" and "..domestic operation.." in the same sentence on meet the press there is yt video out there as well./

MR. RUSSERT: You have no doubt that Osama bin Laden played some role in this.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No specific threat involving really a domestic operation or involving what happened, obviously, the cities, airliner and so forth..."

.. he mentions "the operation" several more times.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by orby1976
 


I sure seem to remember some speech about not considering "wild conspiracy theories".

Is he now reneging on this prior speech, or is he alluding to Cheney having done the dirty deed?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Is there a possibility that the clip is taken out of context?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE
 


No one is defending him!

Listen again....he is discussing what he says is intel from the detainees at Gitmo and in Iraq, POST 9/11. He is justifying, without saying as much, TORTURE to get whatever intel they did get.

EVEN when he says "they wanted to use explosives high enough to trap people" it makes no sense, IF he is referring to the Towers in NYC. If you had an explosion on a LOWER floor, wouldn't more people above be trapped?

What he probably meant was, IF there were more terrorist acts planned in the US, to include bombings of buildings...the bombings would be planted high enough so that firetrucks with ladders couldn't reach to provide rescue.

That is it, that's the gist of what he was struggling to say.

Not defending him...HE was trying to justify torture, in his pathetic way.

GWB was a waste of eight years, there is no doubt. Because he lacks the intellect, and the fortitude to think for himself.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
this is another reason why WE must push for truth!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I suppose we could accept that the comment was out of context or that G W B misread it or that it was referring to something else. It seems that he was trying to connect the information to 911 and the WTC so it might be a slip-up of an admission. However, since no-one in the news media jumped on it, it was allowed to pass.

Another significant slip of the tongue for GWB was his claim, on the day of 9/11, that he saw the first plane hit the tower on TV as he was waiting to go into the classroom. He repeated that 3 times over the next 2 days without anyone asking - "What TV coverage of the 1st plane? There wasn't any. So what was he watching before he went into the classroom? Closed circuit intelligence coverage for a select few?

Fortunately for the government, there are no investigative reporters currently employed by the U S news media. OR even reporters that are paying attention to anything but ratings, sponsorship and status.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
His words were taken out of context. Since the date of the video was in 2006, I wouldn't make any 9/11 collation.

Terrorists from the middle-east were responsible for 9/11, period.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
His words were taken out of context. Since the date of the video was in 2006, I wouldn't make any 9/11 collation.

Terrorists from the middle-east were responsible for 9/11, period.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by Pathos]


HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA
HAHAAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA



I personally believe that explosives WERE used, however, propaganda such as this video which is taken out of context does not help with the effort to prove such. It decreases the credibility of those who are trying to prove it and it actually could have been put out by a disinformation agent. Don't fall for this one.


LOLOLOLOLOLOOOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOOOOOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOO
OOLOLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

And everyone else who grasped at every single straw possible to pull out a "stupidity defense" on Bush's behalf,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH ROFL

And... I pity you.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by king9072]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


lol i know right?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join