Bush accidently reveals explosives Were Used on 9-11

Originally posted by lellomackin
He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows.

But which explosives and what buildings? I mean if they were getting all of this useful info from him then we must know what buildings this applies to right?

P.S. Love your quote, saw Mitch live just before he died. He was awesome!

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by jd140

 

I would really love to see the entire context too but I am pretty sure that even if he says WTC, most of the people defending him will just have a new excuse for him so why even bother? They will say slip of the tounge, mistake, whatever.

Fox blatantly lies. I could care less if they take things out of context or cut them short of the facts that might change the meaning. They lie. Is this clip a lie? Please someone let us see the whole thing.

Of course in the meantime.....

I am still waiting for all the brains that are so sure he is NOT talking about the WTC to explain to me what they do think he is talking about. Why is everyone so fast to defend Bush, right up until someone actually corners them and asks them to explain fully how they could say such things.

If the people who posted this clip intentially left out key information that goes against what they are claiming then yes, this clip is a lie.

They would be doing the same thing that you hate Fox for.

How can you be so sure that he IS talking about the WTC? This speech was given in 2006. He could have been talking about a number of places. You want to see the whole thing, but it seems like you pretty much made up your mind about it already.

Originally posted by jd140
If the people who posted this clip intentially left out key information that goes against what they are claiming then yes, this clip is a lie.

They would be doing the same thing that you hate Fox for.

How can you be so sure that he IS talking about the WTC? This speech was given in 2006. He could have been talking about a number of places. You want to see the whole thing, but it seems like you pretty much made up your mind about it already.

Yes, that would be called a lie of omission.

That is not why I hate FOX news. They can edit all they want, I could care less.

I hate FOX because the talking faces on their sit in front of a camera and blatantly say things that are not true and call it news. Perhaps it does not matter to you but to me, those lies are degrees apart.

If I forget to tell you a building is on fire, intentionally or not, and you go in. I have comitted a lie of omission.

What if I come and say, that building is the only safe place to ever be. Go inside and stay there no matter what happens?

You do not feel those two types of lies are different?

reply to post by evil incarnate


Whatever makes you sleep better at night. Personally I see it as the same thing.

I really don't care how you feel about Fox news.

I just want to see the whole speech.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Whatever makes you sleep better at night. Personally I see it as the same thing.

I really don't care how you feel about Fox news.

I just want to see the whole speech.

Really? You honestly see them the same?

you see no difference between me just not telling you the house is on fire and telling you that the house is not on fire and safe so you better go in there?

You honestly, in the bottom of your heart see those as the same thing?

That is one of the craziest things I have ever read on ATS. I want to see the whole clip too but wow. I am not going to compromise my ethics in order to put you down or tell you that you are wrong.

Originally posted by Blueracer
Does anybody else feel that what he says here is taken out of context? Isn't he talking about what someone confessed to planning from interrogation but not what actually happened?

Even IF the government planted explosives, he wouldn't let it slip like this. No way.

LOL, yeah because we all know what an elegant speaker Bush is/was don't we? As soon as there are two full books published just containing the stupid things that I say, I guess I have to believe that yes, he would let this slip. Rumsfeld said a missile hit the pentagon and I think he could get out a coherent sentence a little better.

Originally posted by News And History

We must resist (and arrest) terrorists in government by ourselves. The so-called, police do not follow our demands or dare to truly investigate of 9/11. They protect the criminals, who orchestrated those "terrorist attacks".

Yeah!!!!

Turn off your computer, get off your backside and GO ARREST THEM!!!

Take a buddy along with a vidcam so we can all watch the epic smackdown the Secret Service will give you.

reply to post by evil incarnate


Bush is actually quite intelligent and quite the speaker. I was going to say google some of his debates before he was president, but anything intelligent has been replaced with satire. After 911, weather he was "in on it" or not, of course he would be nervous. The worst act of terrorism since hiroshima had just been committed and the world was watching. As far as the actual comment, weather you think the government was "in on it" or not, the fact of the matter is that the design of events was to use airplanes as explosives at a high level on tall buildings.

I really don't think this was anything significant, i.e. a Freudian slip. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The video was removed!!

What happened? Was it just now removed?

I wanted to watch it, though I believe I had seen it before.

Another source for video anywhere?

reply to post by Blueracer


If it is out of context, why would a truther do that?

I'd suspect someone else of doing that as a trap,

to suck in truthers anxious to get this out b4 checking out

the facts and get them to smear themselves by repeating an untruth!

[ another brilliant execution of terrorism within!!! ]

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
He didn't "accidentally admit" anything. Cherry picking irrelevant inconsistencies proves nothing. You have to have harder evidence than that.

Not just irrelevant inconsistencies, but irrelevant inconsistencies from Bush. If it were Clinton or Obama making slight inconsistencies I might be interested.