all it means, is that George is running down truth mixed with diversion

True-Operatives were used to destroy the buildings with explosives....ALL 3 OF THEM!!

What he fails to mention, are the many possible scenarios, under which this may have taken place.

The age-old, five-years-and-counting old question:

Was it an op? Was it orchestrated by many that would benefit from it, not limited to and including Al Qaeda , and the cast of thousands that have a vested interest in control, terror, and status quo???

Of course it wasn't an op, the towers collapsed at freefall speed due to fire from burning aviation fuel, Saddam had WMDs, dinosaurs and man roamed the earth together 2000 years ago, evolution is a total fabrication and Jesus will appear on a shaft of light just as soon as Isreal nukes Iran.

Thank you the red white and blue reich.

Thank you the red white and blue reich.

Thank you the red white and blue reich.

I don't know how to interpret this other than as a mistake by Bush in speaking. Assuming explosives were planted with the intent of bringing the whole structure down, it wouldn't matter whether they were planted in such a way as to trap people above them. Nobody is escaping once the hypothetical explosion takes place. Thus the only people he could have been referring to was the people who weren't planning on having the whole building collapse (ie. the people flying the planes).

I suppose you could argue it was a Freudian slip, and thus take it to mean there was "explosives" - but I think it's much more likely he was thinking about "plane impacts" and "explosions" and "fire is shiny" and said the word "explosives" by mistake.

(Entertaining nonetheless).

Like so many other things this man says, this makes no sense at all.. even if we replace "explosives" with "plane crashes" the "high enough" makes no sense, it would be "low enough" so that as many as possible were trapped, and even that doesnt really make sense, since both planes could easily have hit lower...

I don't support Bush, but this video is taken out of context. It has a different meaning when you hear the words that came before and after.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

Search for the term 'Explosives' to skip to the part in question.

Just a rational thought here. IF someone were to plot such a ridiculous act during their own presidency. WHY would they admit it on TV? Much less, your left to assume that intentional explosive charges are what he's talking about. And Sageous, your absolutely right, this is taken out of context. In short.. Bullshit.

Bush: "I like my potatoes plain."

"SEE?!?! HE SAID 'PLANE'! PLANE AS IN JET THAT MEANS BUSH KNEW ABOUT THER AT5ACKS!!!

Good job, Sageous.

So, this video has been intentionally stripped of its context -- yet another example of the deceitful nature of the conspiracy theorists. Here's the quotation in more context:

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.

Irishman:

The towers simply did not collapse at "free-fall speed". Further, you suggest that they couldn't have collapsed due to "burning aviation fuel", but you seem to have mysteriously forgotten a rather significant additional factor -- the high-speed impact of a commercial airliner.

Choggie:

I think this is around the eleventh time I've asked you this, but do you actually have any evidence whatsoever to support your absurd fantasies regarding 9/11 and controlled demolitions?

Sorry dude, you're right, the speed of impact increased the mass of the airliners enough to reduce the entire buildings to dust, Saddam had WMDs, dinosaurs and man roamed the earth together 2000 years ago, evolution is a total fabrication and Jesus will appear on a shaft of light just as soon as Isreal nukes Iran.

Thank you the red white and blue reich.

Thank you the red white and blue reich.

Thank you the red white and blue reich.


Oh yeah, and the OFFICIAL 9/11 report says that the buildings collapsed due to fire.

You obviously haven't read it, which is the only reason I can think of for anyone actually believing it...

Wrong again -- twice. Firstly, the "entire buildings" simply were not "reduced to dust". Secondly, regarding the 9/11 Commission Report, if you had actually read it, then you would have known that it doesn't deal with the issue of building collapses at all, let alone claim that they were due to fire.

So, you accuse other people of not having read the relevant material while inadvertently letting slip that you haven't read it yourself. Nice.

My understanding of the collapse is that they fell at free fall speed. I think this is fact which anyone can check by watching the videos. If the plane caused the buildings to collapse it would have collapsed one floor at a time from the weight above(pancake collapse). From what I can recall, a pancake collapse would have taken about 25 seconds opposed to the 9-10 seconds(correct me if Im wrong on this)it took. Show me any physicists that says different. Wouldnt there be hundreds of physicists explaining how this can occur if it was at all possible. No doubt there would be.

Heres some science from both points of view.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

Par, I think you've made more than enough of an effort to research the topic and try to convince the theorists out there of the facts. It is greatly appreciated, but they continue to want to believe in their fantasies. Honestly, you might as well just let them... as such is the nature of the internet beast - the tiger doesn't have to change its stripes.

What facts? If you know just a tiny bit of the factual evidence presented by both sides you have to question the governments claims or lack of claims. I was very skeptical about government involvement. Mostly because, if I believed or knew my government had A hand in this, what was I going to do about it. Just look at the science presented by both sides. I think if your looking for the truth it becomes apparent quickly.

eric3579:

Well, by watching the videos, we can fairly straightforwardly see that the World Trade Center towers didn't collapse at free-fall speeds. Keep an eye on the outermost debris as the collapse takes place. It clearly falls notably faster than the main mass of the structure. So, unless we are to think that this debris is falling faster than free-fall speed (which would be impossible), it's reasonably clear that the main mass of the structure is falling appreciably slower than free-fall speed.

You state that you have "no doubt" that "hundreds of physicists" would be "explaining how this can occur if it was at all possible". However, this is an example of the fallacy of appealing solely to your own personal incredulity. Further, regarding collapse times and energy transfer, you ask for a "physicist that says different". Well, here's physicist Dr. F. R. Greening: Energy Transfer in the World Trade Center Collapse.

As to your last post, in my experience, the more prosaic explanations for the events of 9/11 are supported by overwhelming evidence. The conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are supported by no compelling evidence whatsoever; they're nothing but pseudo-science, ignorance, lies and deceit. I by no means wish to colour you with this assessment, but even within the limited confines and fleeting nature of this thread, we have seen a veritable microcosm of it.

there are unanswered questions regarding 9/11, the government is withholding information.

Name the information that the government is "withholding"; further, explain what is unusual about any such information being withheld.

Par, what do you think is the underlying group think that drives people to believe in this conspiracy theory? I see clips on videosift where people routinely expose their gullibility but yet thousands will believe an extremely complex alternative view of a major event.

I initially thought there was something to it but after a bit of research and the application of my own commonsense I just don't think it holds any water. I must be a rare sort because I'm willing to change my position based on evidence. Alot of these guys seem to have "picked a side" and won't change their position come hell or high water.

In brief, it's very hard to say, but I think Bertrand Russell was right when he said, and I paraphrase, "It is a trivial task to convince a man of what he wants to believe"; it seems that many of those who buy into the conspiracy theories are, ideologically, extremely hard-left or hard-right. Further, many (especially the younger contingent) wish to conflate fantasy and reality so that they can feel that they're somehow special or modern-day revolutionaries or freedom-fighters or something of that kind. In short, they want to believe they're "like Neo from the Matrix." So, all these factors combine to make this alternate reality extremely attractive. That assessment, however, at best, only skims the surface.

eric3579:

I've just noticed that you were the original poster of this video. Given that we now know it to be fraudulent and intended to deceive, do you not think that it's your intellectual and moral responsibility to either have it removed or relabelled or to appeal to the relevant moderators to do so?

If it is fake, I would discard it. Lying and deception has no place in my world.

I refer you to the evidence offered by Sageous and later expanded upon by myself above. Clearly and straightforwardly, Bush is simply not referring to 9/11 when he mentions explosives; in light of this, "Bush Tells the Public Explosives Were Used on 9-11" is a blatantly misleading and deceitful title. So, do you not think this means that you have an intellectual and moral responsibility to have the video removed or relabelled as per my request?

*discard

Self-discarding this video (discard called by original submitter eric3579)