Official Transcript: President Bush admits bombs were in World Trade Towers.
"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. "
Posted Oct 31, 2006 08:13 AM PST
CLICK HERE FOR BUSH MAKING THIS STATEMENT
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 US 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.
