From: Nadia Sindi <nadiasindi@gmail.com> From: <governor@cqfreestate.com>

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

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.