Date: November 8, 2006 6:46:58 AM PST
Subject: Fwd: President Bush Admits Bombs Were in World Trade Towers
Date: November 7, 2006 8:33:02 PM PST
Subject: [Fw: President Bush Admits Bombs Were in World Trade Towers]
Gee, you think this would have played for at least one news cycle..
PRESIDENT BUSH ADMITS BOMBS WERE IN WORLD TRADE TOWERS
At a White House press conference on September 15, 2006, President Bush spoke of explosives in the W.T.C. He failed to explain how Al Quada was able to wire the three towers in advance of 911, however. Does anyone really believe that Al Quada wired and systematically demolished the three towers? And if they did where was the security company that had the responsibility for keeping the buildings secure? Please listen to Mr. Bush and then read the comment at whatreallyhappened.com:
Audio clip of Mr. Bush:
COMMENT FROM WHAT REALLY HAPPENED:
"There you have it. President Bush had admitted what the eyewitnesses reported on 9/11; that there were bombs inside the World Trade Towers.
"Of course, Bush pins the blame for the bombs on Al Qaeda, which is sort of accurate when you consider that most of Al Qaeda is a creation of U.S. and Israeli intelligence.
"But in trying to explain away the eyewitness reports of bombs, Bush has dug himself into a deeper logic hole. How did these "Al Qaeda" bombers manage to spend at least a week (according to witnesses who heard and saw them) working inside the buildings under the noses of Bush's cousin and brother, who were in charge of security for the World Trade Center? Security at the towers was tight following the 1993 attempted bombing. You could not simply walk into an elevator unless you could document employment or a meeting. Yet as one can tell from the tell-tale marks left by the cutter charges, these preparations took a great deal of time and materials to carry out.
"Why did these "Al Qaeda" bombers go to the extra effort to drop all three buildings straight down instead of toppling them sideways, maximizing the damage?
"If Al Qaeda succeeded in bombing the buildings, why bother with the airplanes? Why bother hiding the bombing itself, if it was truly the work of terrorists out to make a statement?
"In admitting the bombs, Bush has opened up the inquiry to include the very great amount of incriminating evidence found near the airplanes linking the attacks to Arab nations, versus the total absence of any such evidence near the bombs. This contrast is ONLY explained if the evidence left with the airplanes was planted, to frame someone.
"Why did it take 5 years for the government to admit what was obvious to everyone right from the start; that explosives were used to bring down the buildings, unless the original plan was not to admit to the bombs in the first place?
"Dubya, in his pathetic attempt to pin the blame for the now-admitted bombs on Al Qaeda, has created far more logical problems then he has solved."
The truth has a nasty habit of slipping our when least expected. No wonder more and more Americans now realize that the official 9/11 story is bogus.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: 11/7/06
