Political Crossfire Forums

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

He's either telling us that the information we get by torturing men is horrible, or he's telling us, it is right on and that there were explosives in the WTC.

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

...

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.

...

my apologies, if this has been discussed already

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

blockhead wrote: 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.

...

my apologies, if this has been discussed already

I don't think this has been discussed, not lately anyway. It is interesting though, I will admit that. I know we aren't being told the whole truth about sep 11, but like I've pointed out before (without any replies), if there were explosives, why couldn't they've been planted by the islamic extreemists? I mean, it's not like they don't have any experience in blowing sh*t up.

Medius · Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 4177 Location: Kansas

Kamel wrote: blockhead wrote: 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.

...

my apologies, if this has been discussed already

I don't think this has been discussed, not lately anyway. It is interesting though, I will admit that. I know we aren't being told the whole truth about sep 11, but like I've pointed out before (without any replies), if there were explosives, why couldn't they've been planted by the islamic extreemists? I mean, it's not like they don't have any experience in blowing sh*t up.

Access would be the most likely limiting factor of this. These were high security buildings. If terrorists were able to get inside and plant the amount of explosives necessary, it would raise some serious questions about the involvement of those in charge of the security of these buildings.

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2668

Quote: 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.

how about this-the terrorist that hijacked the aircraft did claim they had bombs onboard, that help facilitate the hijacking, maybe just maybe they did

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

Medius wrote: Access would be the most likely limiting factor of this. These were high security buildings. If terrorists were able to get inside and plant the amount of explosives necessary, it would raise some serious questions about the involvement of those in charge of the security of these buildings. So were all of the embassy buildings that they destroyed. Were there's a will, there's a way...

Medius · Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 4177 Location: Kansas

Kamel wrote: Medius wrote: Access would be the most likely limiting factor of this. These were high security buildings. If terrorists were able to get inside and plant the amount of explosives necessary, it would raise some serious questions about the involvement of those in charge of the security of these buildings. So were all of the embassy buildings that they destroyed. Were there's a will, there's a way...

Filling a truck with explosives and driving through the gate isn't quite the same thing. The idea that they had explosives on the plane would be the same concept, though it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. There would be a good chance of the explosives not ever making it into the building, being ejected out the other side, or simply being rendered inoperative by the impact. If the explosives were by chance profound enough to cause extra damage, we would have seen this.

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

Bush is basically telling us all about the valuable information they've collected using torture (his interrogation methods) and yet the 9/11 commission concluded that the towers came down from fires weakening the structure, not from explosives. So which is it?

Free Thinkr · Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:00 am Post subject:

blockhead wrote: Bush is basically telling us all about the valuable information they've collected using torture (his interrogation methods) and yet the 9/11 commission concluded that the towers came down from fires weakening the structure, not from explosives. So which is it?
The information wasn't regarding the specific attacks of 9/11, but future attacks in general.

Rhoades · Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1169 Location: Pennsylvania

The Newb wrote: Quote: 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.

how about this-the terrorist that hijacked the aircraft did claim they had bombs onboard, that help facilitate the hijacking, maybe just maybe they did
They paid the "terrorists" to say they did it. Many people have said they've seen these "terrorists" alive and well after Sep. 11. Of course this is based on no real facts.

johnflesh · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 503 Location: Texas

blockhead wrote: He's either telling us that the information we get by torturing men is horrible, or he's telling us, it is right on and that there were explosives in the WTC.

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

...

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.

...

my apologies, if this has been discussed already

It isn't clear that 9-11 and WTC were at the subject of this interogation of K.S. Mohammed. I'd say like Kamel, this is interesting. Do us all a favor, research K.S. Mohammed and see if he is the "...the man our intelligence agencies believe helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks..."

If so perhaps you are on to something. As it is, clearly out of context based on 911 being in the above paragraph.

Get back to us with that research eh?

Todd D. · Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:55 am Post subject:

Free Thinkr wrote: blockhead wrote: Bush is basically telling us all about the valuable information they've collected using torture (his interrogation methods) and yet the 9/11 commission concluded that the towers came down from fires weakening the structure, not from explosives. So which is it?
The information wasn't regarding the specific attacks of 9/11, but future attacks in general.
Bingo. The information was in reference to future attacks, not the ones that have already occurred

RandomPrecision06 · Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 299

Kamel wrote: blockhead wrote: 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.

...

my apologies, if this has been discussed already

I don't think this has been discussed, not lately anyway. It is interesting though, I will admit that. I know we aren't being told the whole truth about sep 11, but like I've pointed out before (without any replies), if there were explosives, why couldn't they've been planted by the islamic extreemists? I mean, it's not like they don't have any experience in blowing sh*t up.

Well, after the first attack on the WTC in the 90s, wasn't there a lot of talk about beefing up the security at WTC and similar buildings? I'm pretty sure said plans were also implemented (although I don't really know).

I think it would have been exceedingly difficult for terrorists to gain the kind of access they would have needed to do such a thing. People on the inside (assuming they were so motivated) obviously wouldn't have such problems.

If there were explosives, someone on the inside (IOW, with connections) almost had to have been involved. After 93, I doubt very seriously if random people were just allowed to roam freely all over buildings like WTC 1 & 2.