George Bush admits explosives in towers....

[Zlocke]

I don't know if I am coming to this late. If I am I am sorry.
But listen to the link. George Dubya is now saying that Al-CIAda planted explosives in towers and building 7:

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/36806/George_Bush_Admits_Demolition s

If this is correct - this is taken on the 15th of Sept - then it is going to be a heck of a lot easier to convince people of a controlled demolition of WTC7, which will lead more and more people to believe WTC1 & 2 were also a CD.

I don't know if you have discussed this already. If you have, can someone send me the thread.

COME ON GUYS, LETS DO THIS!!!!

[kbo234]

As this is George Bush can we be sure he didn't just get his lines wrong. Has anyone challenged the White House press about this?

[Zlocke]

I have no idea.

As I say, I have just come across this info. I am not suprised it hasn't been on five live though!!

I was hoping someone here could give me more info.....

[TimmyG]

bush wasn't speaking about the wtc specifically here. just about techniques 'terrorists' are talking about using generally.

it is strange that he would add such specific details about bombs in buildings, but it isn't an admission of wtc explosives

[iro]

[James O'Neill]

According to the 9/11 Commission Report Khalid Sheik Mohammed was their main source of information about how the attacks were planned, carried out etc. There has never been any suggestion by the
Commission or anybody else that other buildings were the subject of the attacks.

When Bush made his speech, reading carefully from notes so that it wasn't his usual stumbling performance, he was careful to attribute to KSM the information about where the explosives were to set.

I am astonished that your correspondents are now suggesting that Bush was speaking in some generalised way about buildings and was not specifically referring to the two WTC towers.

The more likely explanation is that the scientific evidence for controlled demolitions is now so overwhelming and, according to the polls, accepted by a majority of Americans, that it has become necessary to prepare a fallback position. That is, the towers were brought down by explosives, but those nasty Muslim fanatics did it. That of course raises as many questions as it answers, but such is the chutzpah of this administration they believe they can get away with it.

After all, they have survived five years already despite the overwhelming evidence of government complicity in the attacks. By the time sufficient persons get sufficiently active to demand impeachment it will be too late. The FEMA camps are being built now, the Military Commissions Act removes the last legal protections, and the Diebold machines will ensure a continuing Republican majority.

[John White]

This is somewhat extraordinary

The generous interpretation would be that Bush is describing how Al-Quada planned to detonate explosives in buildings within the united States, not that any such attack was carried out (becuase of course there's only one attack there could be): the "Sear's tower plot" coulod presumably be cited by the US administration as evidence of this

BUT it's an extraordinary statement to make, and would seem to be connected to the growing awareness of CD of the towers: it could indeed be a prepared fall back position, perhaps for the next administration to re-open 9/11 and blame incompetance on the behalf of the Bush admin for not uncovering "the terorists" use of CD on 9/11 earlier, perhaps becuase of compromised vested interests (IE: Bush covering up his brothers "incompetance"?)

There's wheels within wheels here: strange and strangerer

[heart-earth]

Here is the transcript


http://signs-of-the-times.org/sirangns/forum/viewtopic.php?id=3293

[Patrick Brown]

[heart-earth]

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?id=3293

[Patrick Brown]

Here it is in full: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html#

I don't think it means anything.

[iro]

transcripts can be confusing - better to watch and see the logical flow and expressions.

this is definately not about 9/11 - i am alarmed it is not obvious to anyone who watches it - i can only assume its through 'wanting' it to fit the bill of an admission of CD that people are seeing it that way.

i analyse political speeches and documents every day, discourse analysis is a major part of my political research which i do full time. This is a statement not connected to the 9/11 incident - but to terrorist plots and tactics in general that have been supposedly 'thwarted' or cut off at plannig level by the security agencies or gleamed from interrogation.

if bush slipped off script - id consider it - but this was a prepared speech - you're not gonna get a mistake or a 'joke' put in there. political speeches are meticulously prepared and go through about 4 filter persons before they get approved for the president eyes - and then they are often ordered to be rewritten with his own personal edits and the filter process begins again.

there are no mistakes in this kind of politiking. none.

[Bicnarok]

I actually remember him saying this. I can´t remember when or if its the actual interview mentioned. One things for sure he didn´t say "THAT" the terrorists planted explosives, I think someone mentioned that bombs could have been planted in buildings and he replyed that it wouldn´t suprise him.