Jump to content

Home

Bush admits explosives were used in 9/11


DarthJebus05

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The 2 747 Passenger planes may have had something to do with it as well, and I doubt explosives would have added much to that explosion.

 

But, if you are talking about there being knowledge of the chance of an attack on the centers, then you would be mostly correct. We had intelligence that stated that there may or may not be an attack that the Clinton administration received in the early nineties. That information was passed onto the Bush administration when Clinton went out of office.

 

Whether that information was considered or not is debatable. The thing is, you never really know the date, damage, or location for an attack like 9/11. What were you expecting them to do? Line the Twin Towers with AA guns and missiles? Then the attack would have been put towards another building(s). Some things just cannot be fully prevented.

 

(Yes, I've searched for "world trade center" and even "attacks")

I can also put in "world trade center" and "bill" and get a site that explains, in detail, how the 9/11 attacks were prophesied on the 20 Dollar Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, the part of the attacks on 9/11 (Or 11.9 for our Europeans) that Bush 'knew' about was the fact that a Terrorist Group was going to hijack a Airliner... Not ram it into the World Trade Center (New York).

 

But, as True Avery said, what the heck are you going to do about it? It goes back to the Rakata Computer on Kashyyyk, when it asks you what you would do if you had intelligence that a planet under your soverignity was going to be attacked...

 

Explosives wise, well, a 747 carries a lot of Jet Fuel, which, if I recall correctly, is very volitile, which then makes it very explosive. So, I guess that could be considered an Explosive...

 

How does the title relate to your original post anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what he said: (not an exact quote)

 

Those operatives were to make sure the explosives went off at a high enough... went off at a high enough level... to make sure the people above... couldn't... get out.

 

of course, what's sneakily hidden between these ellipsis are:

 

Those operatives were to make sure the explosives went off at a high enough went off at a high enough level, usually level 70. To make sure the people above in heaven couldn't eat cheeseburgers and get out.

 

really, don't buy into stuff with a lot of ellipsis, especially when they have one on either side of a single word, that's pretty solid proof somebody is taking something out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Yes, I've searched for "world trade center" and even "attacks")

 

I only had to watch this to believe that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand:

 

Paraphrase the message or find a clip with no language. Thanks.

 

~9

 

Whatever.

 

Can someone give me an idea of what this clip actually was? I would like to know as I came too late to see it but would still like to participate in the discussion.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, the part of the attacks on 9/11 (Or 11.9 for our Europeans) that Bush 'knew' about was the fact that a Terrorist Group was going to hijack a Airliner... Not ram it into the World Trade Center (New York).
Mostly correct. The difference are so minor that they aren't worth pointing out.

 

Explosives wise, well, a 747 carries a lot of Jet Fuel, which, if I recall correctly, is very volitile, which then makes it very explosive. So, I guess that could be considered an Explosive...
Indeed. So volitile that you can see it being burnt off on impact :)

 

Thank you for the offer <snip>
You're welcome :)

 

really, don't buy into stuff with a lot of ellipsis, especially when they have one on either side of a single word, that's pretty solid proof somebody is taking something out of context.
I agree for the most part. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is not the most eloquent of public speakers so it's quite easy to assume that he's just "being Bush" here.

 

Can someone give me an idea of what this clip actually was? I would like to know as I came too late to see it but would still like to participate in the discussion.
The part referenced in the title was a clip of bush making reference to a bomb in the WTC buildings (Web Rider quotes it in his post above). Unfortunately, it's not clear what Bush means by this. Taken literally, it could be seen as an admission of their actually being (an) explosive device(s). Taken figuratively, Bush could be referencing the hijacked planes as "bombs".

 

FWIW, I think there is enough evidence to prevent ruling out explosive devices that we do not need to rely on Bush's comments alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a documentary.

It may say 'documentary', but just about anything can say it's a documentary and be put up on youtube as if it were fact.

 

We can conspiracy-theory this thing to death, but regardless of whether it was a bomb that took it down or just the planes themselves, at least hundreds were going to die if the buildings stayed up. It would have been a horrible tragedy with or without any conspiracy-theory bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may say 'documentary', but just about anything can say it's a documentary and be put up on youtube as if it were fact.
Anything can say it's a documentary and be put up anywhere. Fact has nothing to do with it. I'm sure that millions of people eagerly discount Michael Moore, yet to the theaters his movies go. Scientists couldn't wait to take shots at Ben Stein's new movie, but it's in the theaters as well. So to suggest that making it into a theater is some sort of litmus test for "fact" is wrong at best and disingenuous at worst. ;)

 

We can conspiracy-theory this thing to death, but regardless of whether it was a bomb that took it down or just the planes themselves, at least hundreds were going to die if the buildings stayed up. It would have been a horrible tragedy with or without any conspiracy-theory bombs.
I don't think anyone is arguing that those deaths weren't a tragedy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. We can conspiracy the September 11 (I refuse to call by its alternative) attacks to death but the fact of the matter is that we may never know even with the help of documentaries like the ones on youtube or Loose Change. Heck I know that none of it changes my granpa's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...