Bush on Explosives.
Reprehensor Sun, 09/17/2006 - 8:17am
On Friday September 15, President George Walker Bush gave a press conference, and near the beginning of the conference he says;
"...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..."
u2r2h's original blog on this is here. The blog entry includes an audio snippet, more analysis of the incident, and some comments following the post. A very clumsy start to a Limited Hang Out if you ask me. Thanks, u2r2h and Dieter.
Audio is also available here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=171
- Login to post comments
Limited Hang Out ?
Can someone define "Limited Hang Out " for me?
Here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_limited_hangout
Here's a write-up on an excellent example:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/010705_economic_hitmen.shtml
SETTING THE STAGE FOR NIST ON WTC7?
SOURCE: NIST
Question:
Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
Answer:
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
*
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
*
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
*
Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
COINCIDENCE?
"NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."
***
This is the million dollar question. NIST is scrambling to formulate an hypothesis that seems plausible.
Any hypothesis that ignores a "blast event" will be categorically implausible.
Do the math...
Wow, this seems
very important.
Here's my take on it: 9-11 End Game
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/9-11-end-game_14.html
"I believe that the time is now right to force the issue, and that the harm from discussing the end game is far outweighed by the need to come up with a strong counterargument to the "Osama did it" story. So here are my thoughts:
(1) The story that Al-Qaeda planted bombs logically fails. First of all, a couple of truck bombs wouldn't have done it. It took a coordinated and controlled demolition, involving bombs in the basements and throughout the buildings. Controlled demolitions of large buildings take many months of planning, expert timing, and complete control and coordination.
(2) The Twin Towers were some of the world's largest buildings, and they were demolished with near perfection, causing very little damage to surrounding buildings. This is not something that a bunch of rag-tag terrorists could have done on their own.
(3) Additionally, the sudden "straightening out" of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree could ONLY have been accomplished through very sophisticated demolition techniques. There are only a handful of demolition experts in the world who could have changed the direction of a toppling building in mid-air through destruction of the support structures underneath the falling building, so that the building would not topple sideways and destroy surrounding buildings. Osama and the boys? Impossible.
(4) Security for the trade centers was provided by a Bush-linked company. How did a couple of sent-from-the-cave terrorists, unconnected with the military or intelligence resources of the United States (with help from Israel?), have gained the access necessary to have installed the elaborate network of explosives and triggers required to implement these controlled demolitions?
(5) Even if the first tower had been brought down by Al-Qaeda, why didn't the government jam the radio frequencies or cell phones which would have been needed to orchestrate the controlled demolition of the second tower and of building 7? Why didn't the military send in an AWACS plane and jam all communications signals in the entire area (its easy to do)?
(6) Why did the 9-11 Commission and NIST lie and say fires brought down the buildings? This is evidence of guilt, and a cover-up. "We didn't want to scare the people" does not cut it. Covering up with a lie is evidence of guilt.
9/11 researchers and writers who are better informed than me will be able to add points I missed, and to take points off the list which are weak or unimportant. I'm providing a rough first draft, not a finished product.
If we can refute the coming limited hang out story that Al-Qaeda done it, we can win the 9-11 end game -- getting the full truth out there and imprisoning all of those responsible."
Excellent "Rough Draft" GW - May I Add One Piece of Evidence?
I would simply like to add what I consider to be one of the more compelling pieces of VISUAL EVIDENCE of controlled demolition.
This footage has been posted in several different blogs here but has not received many comments.
This footage was shot by Rick Siegel who has started his own website at www.911eyewitness.com. Please take a look at his evidence: http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/northtowercomplete.wmv
This clip shows the North Tower collapse from a unique vantage point. The sun is positioned off to the left behind the tower. It is an incredbily clear day in New York and the view of the collapse is clear and unobstructed.
Remember, the North Tower is the one where the person could be seen waving from the impact hole: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm
We are supposed to believe that the damage from the plane produced heat so intense that it melted the steel beams forcing the tower to collapse, but if this were true, how is it possible for this person to be waving from the actual point of impact?
At the beginning of the collapse we see clear evidence of squibs going off down the sides of the tower. Eyewitnesses reported hearing the sound of "fire cracker like charges" (see Loose Change 2E).
Mid-way through the collapse we see flashes or charges going off inside and throughout the pyroclastic cloud.
After the collapse, we see the remnants of the inner columns or "spires". They stand for a few seconds and then evaporate into falling dust. This is particularly strange because if the buildings had in fact "pancaked", these columns should have remained standing. A "pancaking" would not have caused the virtual desintegration of these steel spires as is obviously apparent here.
In my opinion, it is this type of shocking visual evidence coupled with eyewitness testimony and the voluminous research being done by "truth seekers" that may be pushing the administration to formulate a back-end story should the "official record" fail to stand up to all the intense scrutiny.
Clearly we are at that point. We need to push every piece of hard evidence available to the fore-front of the conversation.
In my opinion, this footage certainly qualifies. Please comment.
So far I like your take the
So far I like your take the best. Once suggestion, though, in number 2. Instead of "causing very little damage to surrounding buildings" I think it would be better to say "causing minimal damage to surrounding buildings" or something like that. I'm just imagining the inevitible response to "very little damage," throwing up pictures of nearby buildings with huge gashes in them from WTC debris and saying "What do you mean very little damage??? You're whole thesis is wrong!"
spire went straight down
The recent released new amateur video (seen it at inforwars.com) showed the spire going straight down, so not exacly vaporizing. But it not falling to the side is highly unlikely if it hadn't been "cut" by explosives into convenient unconnected pieces.
This video is even more damning
It's nice to see a high-rez video for once, look at the flashes clearly seen through the smoke!
It's the freakin Zapruder Film of 9/11
Why isn't this getting more coverage!?!?!
Agreed. It deserves more
Agreed.
It deserves more attention.
Rationale is Wrong
I would add that hitting the buildings LOW and trapping the majority inside seems the more dasterdly thing to do...and later in the day when the building are more populated.
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. M Gandhi
by hitting the bulidings too
by hitting the bulidings too low people could jump out or ladder down...mid to high would make sense...still i think this is an important piece of news that may suggest that the "terrorists" will suddenly have planted bombs in the WTC..the future NIST report on WTC7 could go along with new explaination. If they try to run with this idea, the public will start to ask themselves if the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist actually had it right....keep an eye on this story.
(3) Additionally, the sudden
(3) Additionally, the sudden "straightening out" of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree could ONLY have been accomplished through very sophisticated demolition techniques.
The top of the South tower didn't actually straighten out. In some video it appears to correct itself because of the camera angle and resolution of the video, which hides the fact that the pulverising concrete obscures the visibility of the top chunk continuing its southward topple. But in other video where you can see it better, the top chunk continues falling on that angle, and the South towers' eastside -- including that top chunk -- collapses all the way to Church street at the far east side of the WTC plaza.
Top Chunck
I agree that the top chunk of the South Tower did not "straigten" itself.
However, neither did it stay complete, even if it did - as you say - continue falling at the angle it began. I have seen video footage where:
1) as the top chunk is obscured by the pulverised concrete, it is plain to see that bits of it are exploding UPWARDS. You can see this most plainly on a shot by Spiegel TV, although I have seen other videos showing exactly the same thing.
2) The top chunk - even before it is obscured by the pulverising concrete - has a mysterious "Cathrine Wheel" of sparks ABOVE the damaged area - about half way up from the damage to the top, at the corner. I am sorry I do not know which network this video came from, but as said the sparks - not a light glimt that might be interpreted to be something else - but more like the thermite that was seen just below the damaged area before the collapse, are seen ABOVE the damage as the chunk collapses... until of course they are obscured by the dust clouds.
I by no means am trying to
I by no means am trying to say that the top chunk was completely intact while it continued its southward topple, and the majority of it may have been blown up during collapse, mostly obscured by the pulverising concrete around it, since there wasn't a recognizable top chunk in the debris pile that stretches toward Church Street.
I was merely pointing out that the top chunk didn't straighten out nor fall straight down, but that it continued its southward topple in the direction of Church street, most likely being a significant part of the debris that made it to Church street, since the top had the furthest reach ability stretching away from the base.
Logical fallacies
You can never prove anything by stating a conclusion then make up facts to fit the conclusion. That's dishonest.
You suffer from the same problems many fall into: ignoring the evidence and then making up facts.
This should help you escape from your problems:
confirmation bias
New Analysis of Explosives at WTC Towers
The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research
Self-Loathing and the Denial of Terrorism
http://wtc.nist.gov
http://911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jod911.com
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
Come down to earth and join humanity.
Agenda? Anyone? Anyone?
You and your army of ignorant idiots aren't smarter than Dr. Jones, and you should stop pretending like you are. You people sicken me.
A new video comes out with TWO people saying, "It was a military plane!" after the second impact. What do you people say? THE VIDEO IS FAKE! TINFOIL PROPAGANDA! THEY OVERDUBBED IT! THE WOMAN'S CRYING SOUNDS FAKE! THE MILITARY PLANE SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS AN F-16 THAT WAS TOTALLY OUT OF SYNCH WITH OTHER VIDEOS AND WOULD CHANGE THE ENTIRE DYNAMIC OF THE NORAD STAND DOWN, BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE AN F-16!
You guys aren't fooling anyone, so get the hell out of here.
A revolutionary discovery, don't you think Lars?
I think the world of controlled demolition should be revolutionized after the 9/11 events. With no more than a tank full of jet fuel you can bring down in complete order a skyscraper. And it was proven too. Three (3) such skyscrapers went down flawlessly. So the method works. No problems arised. Is anybody registering a patent for this new and revolutionary concept? Maybe you, ...LiAR$ ?
I did a quick glance of a
I did a quick glance of a couple of those links, and from the "Self-Loathing and Denial of Terrorism" article, I saw this:
"You find yourself almost wishing there was another real attack, so people could see the logical consequences of "fighting back" after 9/11. Yes, it would be bad, but sometimes you have to break an egg to show people the health impact of omelettes. Is it wrong to wish the Canadian terrorists might have succeeded?"
And I am now thoroughly pissed at the writer. NEVER have I thought that, and as far as I know, neither have any of the other 9/11 truthers I've met. We would never want that, and such a statement is not only preposterous, but also libelous and highly offensive. To say that we would want ANYTHING like that to happen to ANYONE to vindicate our side of the matter smacks of absolute disrespect and disregard for anything even remotely close to reason and tact.
It must be easy to write off the 9/11 truth movement when you can make up this kind of morally bankrupt trash as justification to ignore it.
A bit late getting on this,
A bit late getting on this, but something caught my eye.
"(6) Why did the 9-11 Commission and NIST lie and say fires brought down the buildings? This is evidence of guilt, and a cover-up. "We didn't want to scare the people" does not cut it. Covering up with a lie is evidence of guilt."
More importantly: how would it be scarier for the people to believe that controlled demolition was the culprit rather than two airliners? If the cause was controlled demolition, then the problem was a failure of WTC security, and it is then known that flying a plane into a building isn't quite as devastating as originally believed. From there, the recourse is to make sure building security is actually doing its job, rather than enforcing stricter measures on the people. As such, it becomes vividly apparent that the scarier of the two notions is that an airplane could cause that kind of carnage and destruction.
In other words, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
the confession tape of fatty
the confession tape of fatty Bin Laden had similar comments. On it, Bin Laden said they pre-calculated the number of floors and people that would be trapped by the fire of the crashed WTC planes. And to top it, he endorsed the NIST by saying they "knew the gas fire from the planes would melt the iron structure". Fatty however expressed surprise that the whole WTC collapsed, since collapse of the upper floors was "all they had hoped for". - Someone tell Fatty Bin Laden, we know the answer why.
blaming Al-Qaedea for
blaming Al-Qaedea for controlled demolition is a very very good way to approach the issue with former Bush supporters. As seen by the hit-piece editorials and the current troubles of Prof.Jones, the "inside job" accusation is hard to swallow for many. If the use of explosives can be established, blaming it e.g. on militas in the U.S., the idea of an "inside job" will come back inevitably like a boomerang because of the suspicious lack of interest of any such investigation.
I just like the sound of
I just like the sound of "Fatty bin Laden", sounds like a college band...
Fatty was a super genius
Despite the redundant WTC structural design, he was able to predict that the upper stories would fall from the crash and flames. He's a modern day desert genius. While the other criminal heads in Afghanistan were figuring out how to increase their opium output, he was dabbling in structural engineering and demolitions.
I can just imagine Fatty Bin Laden with his fatty abacus, calculating the effect of the plane impacts and the softening point of structural steel.
Bush Instructed to Plant False Info
Bush isn't intelligent enough to make this statement on his own volition. You can observe how criminals operate to cover their tracks in his comments here. It is clear he was instructed to plant this false information to cover for their inside job criminal activities.
Cheryl M - San Francisco, CA
All i can say is... We
All i can say is... We gottem on the run boys and girls...
So now that the truth about
So now that the truth about controlled demolition is exploding (pardon the pun) Georgie and crew are are going to try to put out the utterly ridiculous story that a band of "evildoers", led by one Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, planted enough explosives in the twin towers AND BUILDING 7, to bring them down into their footprints, controlled demolition style. And I suppose it is merely coincidental that Larry Silverstein contracted a security company with two Bush relatives connected to it - Marvin Bush on the board of directors, and Wirt Walker III as CEO. And it is also just a mere coincidence that this same company was in charge of security for Dulles International Airport, and United Airlines on Sep. 11, 2001. We are also to believe that the man who aquired the WTC complex, six months prior to the devastating "terrorist attack", quadrupled the insurance coverage which led to a 4.6 billion dollar settlement, and who made the infamous statement on a PBS documentary about building 7 that they decided to "pull it" . All of these are just coincidences, and the evildoers planted all the explosives in the buildings. Yeah, sure they did.
Hey, the left-gatekeepers just might buy it!
lol I wouldn't put it past them... this is getting ridiculous. The perps are so busted, we gotta turn it up a few notches.
The 9/11 Trials are coming.
The 9/11 Trials are
The 9/11 Trials are coming.
So long as a major false flag terror attack doesn't occur before the October elections, instituting a Bush administration martial law dictatorship.
They don't have what it takes
to handle a serious martial law clampdown nationwide, it would have to be limited and that won't work out for them. If there's another attack, A LOT of people are going to know what's up... it's too late for them.
All real activists, turn it up a few notches. If you're not active, get active now.
Martial Law
I agree with YT. Declaring Martial Law and enforcing it are two different things. If another attack takes place we will be on them like flies on shit. Lets face it, their reign of terror is all over but the shouting. Way too many people know the truth about 9/11. The 9/11 house of cards is tumbling fast.
The MSM executives are
The MSM executives are incriminating themselves as being complicit in the government cover-up. Each day theyy do not force the Bush Administration to face thecold-hard facts the more their collective credibility will be destroyed.
When the truth comes out everyone will look at the MSM with different eyes, and will demand the corrupt system be changed.
There all going down.
the internet has damaged
the internet has damaged them already, it's just a matter of them losing any and all funding - no more viewers. Internet is being wired into Televisions and radio, so this will just usher in the new model of information distribution.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from http://rigint.blogspot.com
http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/09/secret-agent-man.html
Wow!
There is no mention of WTC in this statement. Are we simply....
speculating?
Why do we always have to revert back to Controlled Demolition or "what hit the Pentagon"?
"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."
As odd as this statement of
As odd as this statement of Bush's is, it is not uttered in the context of the WTC or even 9/11.
There are 0 references to "Controlled Demolition" or 9/11
As someone else pointed out, Bush makes 0 references to 9/11 or "controlled demolition" (the topic under which this article has been filed). I think it's a bit irresponsible to make a headline like this, and file it under this section. Whether or not KSM instructed people to plan bombs in "buildings" is beside the issue.
The Headline is "Bush on Explosives"
There is nothing irresponsible about it. The context of Bush's remarks are odd. He goes from discussing changes in the interpretation of the Geneva convention to "terrist" planting bombs in U.S. buildings.
We are here speculating on why he would make such a strange declaration "seemingly out of nowhere".
We are trying to speculate on what Bush's motivation for making these strange statements might be. This forum is entirely appropriate for this type of discussion.
I get a little sick of people trying to "police" the open discussions on this Blog. This is why we are all here. Isn't it?
The original blog entry is
The original blog entry is far worse in that it actually claims bush's statement is a confession of explosives in the towers, which it is not.
However, some of the comments on this thread reflect that interpretation.
When something like this comment comes up, which is so 'near the knuckle', I too think that there is an issue of responsibility to make clear in the post and comments what the fact of the matter is (i.e. Bush is talking about explosives 'high' in some non-descript 'buildings', not the WTC). The comment is obviously interesting and relevent, but it is not the momentous confession that many (myself included) might take it to be at first glance.
I'm not at all trying to police comments. But I would worry that if we arnt careful with tidbits like this, youll have a million amatur blogs with headlines 'Bush Confesses Explosives at WTC', which will be ripped to shreads by the opposition.
This is the stuff that 9/11 Myths feeds on.
Why the limited hangout statements then...
if this is in no way related to 9/11/2001?
this is 911blogger.com , but this news has nothing to do with 9/11
"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."
Dude...
If I've got to explain how Bush talking about explosives being planted in U.S. buildings by terrorist relates to 9/11, then you've got the wrong blog.
Try this one: http://www.dailykos.com/
I understand where you are coming from, but we can't take every
statement that has the words "explosives" and "building" in it and relate it to 9/11. It makes us look like we are trying too hard to tie things together that aren't really related.
Now, if Bush said, "KSM also told us that on 9/11 they made sure to set off the explosives in order to trap people above the floors where they went off.", then I'd say it is relevant.
However, the statement is not that at all.
"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."
The topic association is
The topic association is "controlled demolition", not "Bush oddities", that's why it feels funny.
KSM is the 9/11
KSM is the 9/11 "mastermind", according to the official lies. There's never been any proof of it, like a tie of Bin Laden to KSM, but if KSM were ever tried, there would be a new lie story told of how he planned 9/11. KSM also contributed to the Moussaoui trial by testifying (from undisclosed location) Moussaoui was not to participate in the 9/11 plot.
Then we have Giuliani at every occasion reminding us of the trapped victims above the WTC impact zones, and how he can't sleep because of their memory.
The 9/11 tie to the KSM statements are as obvious as Iraq-9/11: It's just being said indirect by Bush, so that nobody can nail him afterwards on what he said.
The audio sounds like he's
The audio sounds like he's reading from a script, in which case this is a carefully executed move on the part of the White House. I don't think it's a meaningless slip (like the Rumsfeld 'missile' comment), which would explain the (deliberate) lack of a specific mention of the WTC.
Nevertheless, they have never released details of any other KSM- planned attacks in the US. Does this mean there are operations in progress to target other American buildings, which we havn't been told about? There is no past incident to which Bush's comments apply (other than 9/11), so either he is talking about the WTC or another unnamed building that has not been (but possibly will be) attacked.
Basically it's suspicious either way.
Bush was instructed to say,
Bush was instructed to say, this to put the idea of evil terrorists, planting explosives in the WTC, in the minds of all those who still trust the official story More and more people are hearing about the explosions in the WTC, so they are planting this meme in the minds of the great unwashed masses to counteract the evidence of internal explosions in the buildings. It is as simple as that.
George Washingston is on top
George Washingston is on top of this one. Since most people can now see that the towers were imploded, they'll go to their back-up story-- that Al Queda planted the explosives. This puts the focus on the 911 Commission and their incompetence, and away from the Bush/Cheney regime itself. Like Watergate and Iran/Contra, the focus will be on the coverup, not directly on the perpetraters. Still, this shows they are deperate and they're story is unraveling. Al Queda planted the explosives? Give me a break!
***Setting Up the COVER STORY!
Exclusive to Canada Free Press and Northeast Intelligence
Next Attack Imminent:
Muslims ordered to leave the United States
Adnan el shukrijuma
By Paul L. Williams
& David Dastych
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Urgent news from Abu Dawood, the newly appointed commander of the al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan:
Final preparations have been made for the American Hiroshima, a major attack on the U. S.
Muslims living in the United States should leave the country without further warning.
The attack will be commandeered by Adnan el Shukrijumah ("Jaffer Tayyer" or "Jafer the Pilot"), a naturalized American citizen, who was raised in Brooklyn and educated in southern Florida.
The al Qaeda operatives who will launch this attack are awaiting final orders. They remain in place in cities throughout the country. Many are masquerading as Christians and have adopted Christian names.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban will also launch a major strike (known as the "Badar offensive" against the coalition forces in Afghanistan during the holy month of Ramadan.
The American people will be treated to a final audio message from Osama bin Laden which will be aired within the next two weeks.
The announcements from Abu Dawood were obtained by Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Taliban leader Mullah Omar in the wake of 9/11. Mir earlier reports regarding the resurgence of the Taliban with support from Iran and an unofficial truce between President Pervez Musharraf and al Qaeda have been panned out by the press in recent months.
Mr. Mir interviewed Dawood on September 12 at the tomb of Sultan Mehmud Ghaznawi on the outskirts of Kabul. Dawood and the al Qaeda leaders who accompanied him were clean-shaven and dressed as Western reporters. The al Qaeda commandeer had contacted Mir by cell-phone to arrange the meeting. The contents of the encounter are as follows:
Q: How did you have my local mobile number?
A: We watched you on Geo TV walking in the mountains near Kabul with British troops. You were embedded with our enemies. We were sure that you are staying in one of the few hotels or guest houses in Kabul. We were looking for you in Serena and Intercontinental hotels, but then some Taliban friends informed us that they had your phone number and you might visit them in Zabul [an Afghani province]. We got your number from Commander [Muhsen] Khayber. [Khayber was responsible for a homicide bombing in Casablanca that killed 32 people]. Don't worry about that. We will not make any harm to you. We just want to warn you that you better don't take any rides in the tanks and humvis of the Western Forces; they are not safe for any journalist in Afghanistan.
Q: Thanks for your concern; can I know your name?
A: Yes my name is Abu Dawood, if you remember, we have already met in Kunar two years ago, but at that time I had a long beard, now I have a small one. You were there in the mountains, close to Asadaabad [a small village in the Kunar province of eastern Afghanistan] and you met some Al Qaeda fighters. I was among them.
Q: OK. I just want to say that I am a journalist, I have to speak to both sides of a conflict, for getting an objective view and that is why I was traveling with the British troops; now I am sitting with you and that is my real job. I have interviewed Osama bin Laden as well as Condoleezza Rice, General Pervez Musharraf and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. I hope you will appreciate my objective approach?
A: You have claimed to be objective, but you and your TV channel have always given much time to the propaganda of our enemies. Anyhow, it was our moral responsibility to warn you that you better try to avoid traveling with the British, American, Canadian, French, Spanish and Italian troops in Afghanistan, we will target all of them, we don't want that people like you suffer by our attacks, it is not good for you, and at least you should not be killed with the enemies of Islam. I am sure, brother Khayber have informed you that the Taliban will launch a big operation against the Crusader Forces, in the holy month of Ramadan; don't come to Afghanistan in Ramadan. You will see a lot of fadaee amalyat ["suicide bombings"] in coming days, Kabul will become a graveyard of NATO and ISAF.
Q: Yes Khayber told me about the "Badar operation" in Ramadan. I think you are an Afghani but you are not a Talib, are you a member of Al Qaeda?
A: You are right. But we are with the Taliban, just helping them, fighting under their command. Every Al Qaeda fighter can become a Talib, but every Talib cannot become Al Qaeda.
Q: So where is Sheikh Osama bin Laden?
A: I don't know exactly, but he is still in command of Al Qaeda, and he is in contact with his Mujaheddin all over the world.
Q: Why there was no new video statement from him, in last two years?
A: Because the CIA can feed his fresh picture to the computers fitted on their Predator planes, and these planes can get him, like Nek Muhammad or Akbar Bugti. But he has released many audio messages this year. Listen to him carefully. Don't underestimate his warnings. America is playing with the security of Muslims all over the world, now it is our turn again. Our brothers are ready to attack inside America. We will breach their security again. There is no timeframe for our attack inside America; we can do it any time.
Q: What do you mean by another attack in America?
A: Yes a bigger attack than September 11th 2001. Brother Adnan [el Shukrijumah] will lead that attack, Inshallah.
Q:Who is Adnan?
A: He is our old friend. The last time, I met him in early 2004, in Khost. He came to Khost from the North Waziristan. He met his leaders and friends in Khost. He is very well known in Al Qaeda. He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago. We call him "Jaffer al Tayyar" ["Jafer the Pilot"]; he is very brave and intelligent. Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn't want to panic his people. Sheikh Osama bin Laden has completed his cycle of warnings. You know, he is man of his words, he is not a politician; he always does what he says. If he said it many times that Americans will see new attacks, they will definitely see new attacks. He is a real Mujahid. Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. Americans are the biggest supporters of the biggest terrorist in the world, which is Israel. You have witnessed the brutality of the Israelis in the recent 34-day war against Lebanese civilians. 9/11 was a revenge of Palestinian children, killed by the US-made weapons, supplied to Israel. The next attack on America would be a revenge of Lebanese children killed by US-made cluster bombs. Bush and Blair are the Crusaders, and Muslim leaders, like Musharraf and [Afghani President Hamid] Karzai are their collaborators, we will teach a lesson to all of them. We are also not happy with some religious parties in Pakistan and Egypt, they got votes in the name of Mujaheddin, and then, they collaborated with Musharraf and [Egyptian President] Hosni Mubarak. Now look at all of them, Musharraf and Karzai don't trust each other, the CIA and ISI don't trust each other, all the hypocrites and enemies of Mujaheddin are suspecting each other; this help to us is coming from Heavens. Allah is with us.
Q: But if you attack inside America again, then Muslims living in America will face lot of problems, why would you like to create new problems for your brothers and sisters?
A: Muslims should leave America. We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy's homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington.
Q: But your fighters are also using the American Muslims as their shield, if there are no Muslims in America, then there would be no Al Qaeda, may be the Americans would feel safer?
A: No, not at all. We have a different plan for the next attack. You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Muhammad Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter.
Q: So you will not attack America, until Muslims are there?
A: I am not saying that, I am saying that Muslims must leave America, but we can attack America anytime. Our cycle of warnings has been completed, now we have fresh edicts from some prominent Muslim scholars to destroy our enemy, this is our defending of Jihad; the enemy has entered in our homes and we have the right to enter in their homes, they are killing us, we will kill them.
Long time investigative journalist, Paul L. Williams is the author of such best-selling books as The Dunces of Doomsday, The Al Qaeda Connection , Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11. He has been the subject of a PBS documentary and the subject of programs on the Discovery and History channels. He is a frequent guest on such national news networks as Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR.
(International journalist David M. Dastych writes for Poland's acclaimed weekly,Wprost. His columns appear regularly in the Edmonton-based Polish Panorama.) He can be reached at: David.dastych@aster.pl
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. M Gandhi
So close they can taste it...
What War With Iran Would Look Like
A conflict is no longer quite so unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a war - and the huge price it would have to pay to win it
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535316,00.html
So let's see here.
Bush said that the terrorist had plans to put explosives in the buildings to entrap as many people in the buildings as possible. This is disturbing for two reasons.
One, the terrorist knew that entrapping as many people in the buildings would cause more civilian casualties, but our government being the idiots that they are couldn’t figure out that evacuating the buildings at ANY point in the attacks might actually save lives.
Two, the terrorist knew that entrapping as many civilians in the buildings would kill more people because they knew that the buildings would fall after a given amount of time due to the impact of the planes and heat of the fires. How could the terrorist, who were living in another country in a damn cave of all places, know this information but no on in this government could figure these things out?
The flat out absurdity of these things happening, even if you were to believe the “official Story,” is pretty much impossible.
Which brings up mondays MSM
Which brings up mondays MSM talking point... "This is not the first time weve seen bombs in the Trade center buildings...lets not blow this out of proportion people" ...cant you just hear it...
"Next Attack
"Next Attack Imminent:
Muslims ordered to leave the United States"
Another false-flag op in the making? I'd like to see discussion about this. Sounds pretty scary.
When Bush " Misspeaks"...
I've noticed when Bush does one of his "nonsensical statements", such as "catapulting the propaganda", or other supposed miscues, there is always a strong element of truth in his choice of words. This choice of words by Bush is potentially significant. It could very definitely be the start of a "limited hangout".