JWD 0 Posted November 8, 2007 Ok I was on the White House web page looking into the issues of waterboarding and came across a press confrence from the Rose Garden in September 15, 2006. It all started off rather normal and then all the sudden this : For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060915-2.html It is the eighth paragraph down if you dont want to read the whole presser. So I though for sure that at the very least one of the reporters would have asked him to clairify his statements but not one of them did. So I guess what I am getting at is why would he make a statement like this. All along the government has denied the fact that "bombs had went off and contributed to the collapes of the towers. And please don't start with the conspiracy theories crap either, thats not what im getting at. What I am getting at is, was there explosives there, and how did they get there. Why have they stated that there was no explosives? If there was explosives used why are they covering it up? Why in the HELL did not a singal one of the reporters question him on that remark? WTF for real. I have been looking for video of this presser but have found none as of yet. If any one knows where to find something like this please post it here. I would like to see his face as he makes this remark. From the transcripts it seems as though he was studdering as if maybe he let the cat out of the bag. Anyway I thought some of you here would find this interresting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted November 8, 2007 I don't see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JWD 0 Posted November 8, 2007 I don't see it. What part don't you see? Click the link to the WH web page and go down eight paragraphs. Its there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,797 Posted November 8, 2007 You're really really NOT this dense are ya? Jet Fuel and Firah = "Explosives". What The Commander in Babble was trying to say is that the Hijackers were taught to hit to hit the towers at a certain level so as to create the most damage. Geebus focking Christo, I feel dumber for having had to explain this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remote controller 143 Posted November 8, 2007 You're really really NOT this dense are ya? Jet Fuel and Firah = "Explosives". What The Commander in Babble was trying to say is that the Hijackers were taught to hit to hit the towers at a certain level so as to create the most damage. Geebus focking Christo, I feel dumber for having had to explain this. Damn proud of you wiffle!!! damn Proud! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 2 Posted November 8, 2007 I don't normally click this kind of bait but I figured it was too easy to poke holes in to resist. How is it you take the general idea of "planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S." and turned that into the specific attack on the WTC? mmmyea, thought so. thanks for coming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted November 8, 2007 What part don't you see? Click the link to the WH web page and go down eight paragraphs. Its there. I did. There is simply nothing to see here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JWD 0 Posted November 8, 2007 You're really really NOT this dense are ya? Jet Fuel and Firah = "Explosives". What The Commander in Babble was trying to say is that the Hijackers were taught to hit to hit the towers at a certain level so as to create the most damage. Geebus focking Christo, I feel dumber for having had to explain this. Why use operatives rather than hijackers? Why not say planes and jet fuel rather that explosives? You do agree there is a difference I would hope. Remember in politics every word spoke is left up to interpretation. Clairty is key here and none was established. Maybe you shopuld write the Prezs speechs that way we would know his meaning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davebg 0 Posted November 8, 2007 Geebus focking Christo, I feel dumber for having had to explain this. I feel dumber for just having read his post. I mean, my God, man...if there really were such a thing as the grammar police there'd be a focking SWAT team on his doorstep right about now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TK0001 99 Posted November 8, 2007 Why use operatives rather than hijackers? Why not say planes and jet fuel rather that explosives? You do agree there is a difference I would hope. Remember in politics every word spoke is left up to interpretation. Clairty is key here and none was established. Maybe you shopuld write the Prezs speechs that way we would know his meaning. The troothers hang their hats on things like the idiotic President using the wrong words to describe something (ever heard the clip of him stammering through "The State of the Union address"?) and Rummy using the word "missile" when describing the airplace that hit the Pentagon, while the 99.999% of the people who can actually use their brains rely on the evidence provided by countless experts in the matter. The president is an idiot. Sorry that's such a newsflash for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,797 Posted November 8, 2007 Clairty is key here and none was established. From George Bush? UNPOSSIBLE!!!! frigging tard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twinsdad 66 Posted November 8, 2007 Hmmm....Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.....wasn't he the financier / mastermind behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center? The one that just made a huge hole in the parking garage? So you are correct, explosives were used at the WTC, IN 1993!!! Also, let's take your excerpt and add a couple of paragraphs and see if it reads the same: The bill I have proposed will ensure that suspected terrorists will receive full and fair trials, without revealing to them our nation's sensitive intelligence secrets. As soon as Congress acts on this bill, the man our intelligence agencies believe helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks can face justice. The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States. For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping. He gave us information that helped uncover al Qaeda cells' efforts to obtain biological weapons. So this information was obtained much before the 9/11 attacks and used as an example support for a GWB bill. The quote was not used to describe the 9/11 WTC attacks. Nice try... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted November 9, 2007 JWD has made 3 posts in this thead alone............yet his post count stays at 72. I blame GWB! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
