Wikileaks Cables Describe 9/11 attacks as 'Bombings'

reply to post by micpsi

Plus many people are so dumbed-down that they would not realize the significance of such statements. That seems to include some here

I'm dumbed down because I fail to see any significance in such a meaningless cable? Please, if you are going to argue/debate me, make an argument. Do not insult my intelligence.

Perhaps it goes the other way. Perhaps there are people who are so "dumbed-down" that they would see something out of nothing, and instantly claim it to be evidence for their delusional conspiracy theory. Until Wikileaks reveals evidence of an actual conspiracy on 9/11, claiming word-use as evidence is just hogwash.

Or idiocy.

Insert "I'm smarter than you are" icon here:

I realize that Bush would not be considered a reliable source, but he did say there were bombs in the buildings.

Bombs in the buildings

In context:

"2. (SBU) Judge Garzon is considered a critical threat profile Judge due to his on-going oversight and involvement in highly-visible terrorism cases including the September 11, 2001 Trade Tower bombings as connected to the Moroccan Al-Qaida cell known as the Barakat Yarkas group."

Looks to me like the cable is referring to "terrorism cases", including the September 11, 2001 "bombings"..

That APPEARS to reference 9/11 "bombings", but not so..

It's a good thing the ATS psychic detective bureau were able to project themselves back through time and read the mind of the author with specific accuracy enough to clear up what s/he actually meant: airplanes.

Normally one has to call a 900 number @ 3am to chat with queen Tardycaacaa or one of her gifted psychic detectives, we are blessed they offer these services free on ATS.

reply to post by GovtFlu


Of course you are correct, it should actually read:

cases including the September 11, 2001 Trade Tower AIRPLANINGS as connected to the Moroccan Al-Qaida cell known as the Barakat Yarkas group

But since that word doesn't exactly trip of the tongue then maybe will just use bombings.

i tend to believe the witnesses, since I myself was not there on that day...



or the police..



if you still think some non existent Al-Qaeda (the CIA "data" BASE) group did this led by Usama Bin Laden you are delusional...

even the FBI does NOT list Usama Bin Laden being in connection with the 911 Attacks...

I have created mirror site (not quite, only the cables are mirrored) with an up-to-date list of WikiLeaks cables. See them at www.dazzlepod.com... The cables are presented in a nicely formatted table to ease browsing.
You could search for more cables with mention of 9/11 event, e.g. "http://www.dazzlepod.com/cable/cable_direct/?keyword=9/11". This brings up 35 cables to date.

reply to post by Exuberant1



Come on guy.......we all know "bombings" means "airplane attack"...

And when Larry Silverstein said "pull it" ....he was talking about his finger.

Ok Even My English is Poor But Isn't that Worded Terribly For A Legal Document,

Good find. Flag.

I need help defining thermite, can anyone help?

What do bombs do? Explode.
What would the word bombing mean? Something exploding or exploded.
Saying that the towers were bombed meant that the towers exploded.

When the airplanes made contact with the building their was a decent sized explosion.
You could refer to that as a 'bombing', because technically a plane full of gas could be used as a bomb.

Google defines 'bombing' two ways
# an attack by dropping bombs
# the use of bombs for sabotage; a tactic frequently used by terrorists

I'm going to go against the general feeling here and say bombings is an unusual word.

Maybe they should of said Attacks?
The trade centre kamikaze planes?
projectiles?

But bombs?

Bombs explode,... thats a very strange choice of words.

reply to post by freedish

. . .technically a plane full of gas. . .

No gas.
Jet fuel is a specific grade of Kerosene.
It can burn rapidly when aerosolized.
It does not explode.
The October Clues "nose out" theory is a good example.
The "nose" was pure liquid fuel that once it got a ways outside the building, it slowed down enough for the fire to catch up, and overtake it and engulf the fuel in flame.
So rather than an explosion, it is fuel dispersed in a rapid fashion then igniting. Nothing like an actual explosion from military grade explosives.
So, "bombing" is not from an airplane impact. That does not make sense. A bombing would refer to a bomb going off, like you mentioned, either dropped, or planted. I would suggest another type: Think WW II and the V-2 rockets the Germans were aiming at London. What were they called? Flying bombs. The bomb was not rocket fuel but actual bomb type explosive in the front of the rocket.
What would be analogous today would be a cruise missile. I very much consider that as a possible device used in the 911 attacks. I believe there is such a device that is in the 911 videos available for viewing today. It is sometimes referred to as the "orb". The clearer videos, including one of the recent NIST released ones, show what seems to be small wings, but that could be a variant of a cruise missile and could have been an especially large one, to deliver sufficient payload for the job, which would be to take out the central columns to start the initial stage of the collapse of the towers.

What is relevant here is WHO said "bombs"
They could mean planes, they could mean bombs.
It is funny though how plane crashes have now become bombs.
The lengths truthers will go to to defend the OS .
"Hey, let's change the dictionary!
"Great idea DIck!"

To be pedantic about terms, then demolished fits pretty good as well. video.google.com...#

Excellent work AE911Truth.org, clear, correct and faultless. But why still so much resistance ???

Jets alone can not bring down the building. Nobody outside the NIST umbrealla is supporting the official story. WTC 7 was not hit by a jet.

The people believing in the OS resemble more and more people who swear they have seen bigfoot. I see truthers using an cold analytical approach.

I thought I should make a comment
concerning my own post above, in
case it is not figured out by the reader;
just as the plane is not a bomb, the
bomb did not deliver 10,000 gallons
of jet fuel. I believe each tower, in turn,
were hit simultaneously by two different
objects, one, a Boeing 767 sized plane,
the second, a smaller type vehicle,
consistent with the concept of a large
cruise missile.

reply to post by Myendica

so we can just throw in punctuation and hyphens into other people work now? i see no breaking up of words like you put them in..

Applying punctuation to help you understand what was being conveyed , does in no way change the original intent of the statement . You should have thanked me , instead of offering up the lame reply that you did .

Okay Einstein , I showed you what the statement meant , now it's your turn to show everyone here how the statement implies that the judge is a threat .

Don't you find it very strange that you are the only one here who interpreted it as you did ? Not even your fellow truthers are gonna ride with you on this one .

Focus a little less on my editing skills , and more on reading comprehension . If your comprehension had've been up to snuff , I wouldn't have had to edit it in the first place , now would I ?

reply to post by Exuberant1


again, dimitri khalezov in 911thology has virtually proven that 3 underground 150MegaTon thermonuclear
explosions brought down all three buildings. his goes a long way further than any other theory in explaining
the observed destruction and aftermath. i can only surmise that the powers that be have far reaching control,
even over conspiracy sites themselves, and i am sure that if this 'fact' was more publically known and accepted,
an inevitable revolution must result..

reply to post by Judge_Holden


Aaah the usual suspects rushing to the defens of the official conspiracy theory. Now you have proof of nanothermite to worry about.