Bush admits there were explosives in WTC!

Thanks, Valhall. You are correct that a beam bearing a load beyond what it can handle would bow. My question is, if you imagine 2/3 of the building's structure completely intact and sound, and a hit to "part" of a section of the top 1/3, which although damaging part of the frame of the building, only ignites what ends up being a few isolated fires - how does this topple, straight down, the entire building?

It's already been evidenced that the fires were isolated. The fule in the planes, judging by the video, burned almost instantly upon impact given the huge fireballs.

If there were any fuel left over, enough to burn beyond the heat resistance of the steel structure of the building (which I understand is well over 1500 degrees F, while under optimum conditions this jet fuel would have burned at 1200 degrees F), it would take much longer for that fuel to reach the temperature needed to come close to weakening the structure of that entire section; the towers collapsed almost immediately after being hit.

But going back to my first question, you have a completely intact and sound structure to most of that building, and a couple of isolated fires on the upper third. The sound structure, versus the penetrated structure ratio was 80/20. If these planes hit in the middle of the buildings, AND the fuel theory is true (which I don't believe it is), then there is more of a chance of the top of the tower, maybe possibly, dropping a floor or two and stressing the lower half of the building. It would stress it, but it seems to be the lower 80% would hold strong and that top half would rest on the lower half, or topple off.

But both of these buildings - BOTH - only minutes after being hit, fell cleanly and without any resistance at all, straight down into their footprints (a term I picked up while getting off my a** to research this sh*t). Maybe one would possibly, if all of the elements were in perfect order and the stars were in line, without a perfectly planned demolition, perform this seemingly impossible feat, but you have WTC 1, WTC 2 AND WTC 7 falling perfectly. Wow what a coincidence. It just gets dirtier the deeper you get into this.

I've been researching all of this on and off. I am getting a lot of information on these events (actually, on miriad topics affored by the "free" and "neutral" Internet, God bless it). But I have to admit that after watching the videos at the links I provided above, they made my stomach turn. It's a sick feeling. You hear people talking about being confused. Just going to work. Innocents. And the fact that our government is a suspect, which to anyone with common sense and an Internet connection has to consider, it makes me sick. It should make everyone sick. And the sheer number of people talking about these things, should make the rest wake up and seriously ask some questions.

I don't think it really matters anyway. And that may be a somewhat apathetic response, but it's a pragmatic one. The 911 Commission is a government agency created to investigate..the...government...that created it...NOW some people may say it's a "bipartisan" organization. To them I say please come back to the planet earth. Welcome to the United States. The only truth that comes out of this chessboard called the U.S. comes from civilians too stupid to realize that they will either be dismissed, that they are a small voice crying out in an abyss of darkness, or they could be arrested and harassed for their views. Rense.com, baby!

This country penalizes a sitting president for fondling his aide, but looks the other way when the pres. lies his country into war with two countries...do I hear three...? 911 is a carte blanche (USA Patriot Act) for our pres., who is the most powerful man on the planet. If that doesn't scare you, then speak up against the administration and report back to me...our personal IP addresses could be traced from this site and used against us. Imagine a blacklist of "conspirators"...creepy.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Tone23 and Val, you both get WATS votes for this thread, for keeping it civil, and for putting so much work into it. Great job, both you you.

Val deserves most of the credit....

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, I'm glad some one else pointed that out, and I didn't have to. I make of it this:

That plot wasn't thwarted because of information obtained from KSM interrogations. So IF the Library Tower plot is what he was referring to, LeftBehind's argument that this is a litany of thwarted plots based on information from KSM goes out the window.

lol you do realize I had said this on the previous page?

Man, Zap has changed.
Your acting very upset or something.
Anyway, Congrats on the WATS votes.

Originally posted by OnTheDeck
Thanks, Valhall. You are correct that a beam bearing a load beyond what it can handle would bow. My question is, if you imagine 2/3 of the building's structure completely intact and sound, and a hit to "part" of a section of the top 1/3, which although damaging part of the frame of the building, only ignites what ends up being a few isolated fires - how does this topple, straight down, the entire building?

I can't answer this and wasn't trying to insinuate that the question is not a good one. I was just pointing out that the "bowed" columns cannot be taken as definitive evidence of an explosion - because impact loading would also cause bowed columns. That was my only point, I assure you.

Originally posted by grimreaper797


lol you do realize I had said this on the previous page?

This thread has moved so fast I've just barely kept up with myself!

lol

With the finding of the 2002 plot on the Library Tower, that now makes this more complicated as the statement could apply to that plot, and not the 9/11 plot.

Then why use the word "buildings" and not "building" if indeed he was talking about the Libary Tower?

Originally posted by etshrtslr

With the finding of the 2002 plot on the Library Tower, that now makes this more complicated as the statement could apply to that plot, and not the 9/11 plot.

Then why use the word "buildings" and not "building" if indeed he was talking about the Libary Tower?

Good point. But there is still the "mid-2003" East coast plot...of which I don't know much about (target wise).

well It seems like this. it cant be the 2003 plot. Hes talking in past tense. Like they had already been directed. As you know, the final details of the plot are NEVER revieled till the very end. In Al Qaeda, they didn't tell them what targets they would hit until august of 2001. So needless to say, the operatives are left in the dark about what they will be doing and where. If they were going to plant explosives in say the US bank in LA, They wouldn't know that until soon before it happens. They would most likely learn how to either plant explosives or how they would smuggle suicide bomb vests into a secure area. To say they were directed to plant explosives high enough in a building to trap people, would be to tell them what they would be doing.

When KSM talks about plots, he leaves the attackers in darkness until the very end. These statements sound like he had already commanded them to do it.

The reason it sounds like the WTC is because he talks about the plot in its final stages, which no other plane plot got to that point. He never got to the point of directing anybody to attack other then Moussaoui to take training to fly planes, which he was caught. Thats when the plot was dropped.

If the plot was dropped then, there is little to show why he would be talking about the second wave of attacks. Valhalls link to the interviews with KSM say he leaves attackers in the dark about the operation until, in 9/11's case, a month before.


www.rcfp.org...
I read the entire thing last night. He leaves attackers in the dark till the operation is about to go into effect. All he will tell them is, take flight school. Or learn to plant explosives. He wouldn't say "Make sure to plant these explosives high enough so that the people above cannot escape" because that would mean there is a target (some building, pretty high building at that). It would mean he's giving details to the operation. He would NOT tell operatives this UNLESS it was in the final stage. He makes it VERY clear that the less people that know about the plot, the better. He says "if 4 people know, thats bad, if two people know thats good, if one person knows, thats better" he simply wouldn't direct the operatives to such specific operation commands because it would be informing them of the plot. That would only be acceptable to him if it were the final stages of the plot.


[edit on 17-9-2006 by grimreaper797]

Nevermind, since you editted your post.

[edit on 9/17/2006 by Zaphod58]

I apologize for the off-topic-ness of this post, but I was just talking with my husband about this latest development and we're wondering, with all of the 'leaks' and other embarrassments that seem to slip out of Bush's mouth, if the powers behind this administration might consider eliminating the source... I mean, this is a HUGE foot-in-mouth situation and there's a lot of 'splainin' to do. It certainly would make for a big commotion if an October surprise was a "terrorist attack" that eliminated the source of this administration's biggest "loose lips"...

And if that came to pass, everything's in place for the elections to be at least postponed. And Cheney would be the president for the final 2 years.

I'm certainly not advocating this, just speculating on the possibility.

Great thread!

Zaph,

you've edited out your comment, but I'd like to reply to it anyway. You stated something to the effect, they wouldn't just wait until the last month before an attack and tell them what they were going to do.

That's exactly what we are told they did on 9/11.

Yeah, but they still had SOME idea of what they were doing. They knew they had to get weapons they could carry on a plane, and they had to get flight training, and other things. So they knew at least SOME idea of if not what the specific target was, what was involved. It would be the same with the 2003 attacks. They'd have at least a BASIC idea of what was involved.

And it's entirely possible it WAS in the last month before execution when we got the info from KSM to stop it, so maybe they HAD been instructed on what do to.

I wouldn't be surprised, if there are "cells" in the states, and then they just use the press, the net, and other medias to get the "normal" Muslims involved, and then we got major problems. Then you have some of the "idiots" here, who just throw threats around for fun, or like that crazy guy who went on a ..... he was just a lonely, crazy, idoit, but what he did in Montreal was just nuts. And they're trying to attract people just like him. But Bush's biggest problems is he leaks alot of information, but won't release the information till the public, or documents that prove or disprove it. But we still got 10 years at least, before they would probably want to.

[edit on 9/17/2006 by smalllight]

Okay, I've got another question (by the way, I don't agree with what you just said. That's not in agreement with the 9/11 Commission Report. 15 out of 19 hijackers had no clue whatsoever what their mission was - all they knew is that they had pledged to commit martyrdom for their faith.) Here's my next question:

Since the 9/11 attacks never involved bombs on the planes, or in the buildings (as is alleged by some) and the muscle hijackers were not selected or trained until after the plan was committed to by bin Laden, why were they trained in the use of explosives?

[edit on 9-17-2006 by Valhall]

Who knows, Plan B? Blow up the Airport?

We don't know that the 9/11 hijackers WERE trained in explosives (at least *I* don't remember hearing they were), and they probably weren't. There wouldn't be any need for them to be. And the MUSCLE hijackers wouldn't have needed to be trained until the last month, but Mohammed Atta (sp?) and the other PRIMARY hijackers HAD to have some idea of what they were doing. They knew they had agreed to be martyrs, and they were training for a long time to become pilots. They had to have a pretty good idea that meant crashing planes into something, because if you're going to hijack, you can get the crew to fly you somewhere, and if you're going to blow it up, then you don't need to fly anywhere.

For the 2003 attacks, they wouldn't have wanted to get, let's say for sheer randomness sake here, 21 people to take explosives into buildings, a month ahead of time, only to find out that 8 of them couldn't put a bomb together or didn't know a pillar from a wall. (yeah I know, I just used those because I could. ) You want to at least make sure they could put bombs together, and they could tell where they'd need to put them and all that.

[edit on 9/17/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
We don't know that the 9/11 hijackers WERE trained in explosives, and they probably weren't.

Yes we do, and yes they were. The 911 Commission Report says so.

Final Training and Deployment to the United States
Having acquired U.S. visas in Saudi Arabia, the muscle hijackers returned to
Afghanistan for special training in late 2000 to early 2001.The training report=
edly was conducted at the al Matar complex by Abu Turab al Jordani, one of
only a handful of al Qaeda operatives who, according to KSM, was aware of
the full details of the planned planes operation.Abu Turab taught the opera=
tives how to conduct hijackings,disarm air marshals, and handle explosives.

But there was never any plan to have explosives on the planes after bin Laden got involved (which was well before this training took place). NEVER...because it was perceived to be too much of a risk to the operation.

So let's review. A couple 9/11 we're trained in explosives, as a back up. But then Mohammod Atta changed his mind, and they decided to go and used planes instead?

Originally posted by smalllight
So let's review. A couple 9/11 we're trained in explosives, as a back up. But then Mohammod Atta changed his mind, and they decided to go and used planes instead?

No, that would be completely wrong. The plan was created by KSM, refined and approved by bin Laden, to take 4 planes and fly them into the WTC towers, the Pentagon and the Capital building. They decided against using any explosives on board as it would be a risk of getting caught and stopped. AFTER they finalized the plans, they then started assigning operatives. ALL of the muscle men were given training in explosives - even though there were no explosives to be used on the planes. So where were they supposed to use explosives?