GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   If 9/11 was an "inside job" was the 1993 bombing of the WTC one, as well? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1061830)

barcodes 03-21-2012 10:41 AM


Sly 03-21-2012 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xholly (Post 18835767)
Was the USS Cole bombing staged as well?

Australia had the Bali bombing and the UK had theirs, but you don't see us carrying on with all this conspiracy stuff. What is it with America and conspiracies? Im genuinely curious.

Forgot the train bombing in Spain? I want to say 2005.

Quentin 03-21-2012 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 18836277)
pretty sure remembering the 93 bombing was planned under fbi watch so not a very good example lol

That's one way to interpret what Emad Salem has said, I suppose, although I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the 1993 was "planned under the FBI's watch," even if you believe what Emad Salem said on the tapes in question.

Here's one of the more detailed articles I've read on the subject; if you read about the exchanges between Salem, John Anticev and Louis Napoli, do they really sound like a conversation between people who conspired with each other to carry off a bombing, or do they sound more like an informant disagreeing with his handlers about what details he told them, and when he relayed those details?

Here's an example of what I mean:

Quote:

Throughout, the transcripts reveal the mood of guilt and recrimination in the wake of the devastating trade center blast. In one early conversation secretly taped by Mr. Salem while riding in a car with two F.B.I. agents soon after the explosion, the informer and the agents argue whether Mr. Salem had specifically informed them months earlier that the attack on the World Trade Center would take place.

"I told you so, that this is one of the targets," Mr. Salem says. "You forgot. You have your papers. Go back to it. World Trade Center, Empire State Building, Grand Central. Times Square."

"I looked over my notes," one of the agents, John Anticev, says. "I didn't see anything about a target."

To this, Detective Napoli, says: "I was there also. I don't remember you saying target."
So, if the FBI was organizing the attack, and using Salem to build the bomb, why would they even be talking about whether he told them one of the potential targets was the World Trade Center? Presumably, the people running the plot would already know what the target was, no?

Salem's claims are interesting, but to me, they don't even begin to suggest that the FBI built the bomb used in the WTC attack. Even the portion that is quoted on Emad Salem's wikipedia page, which some people appear to believe represents a 'smoking gun' of some kind indicating the FBI was running the bomb plot, sounds to me like a dispute over how, when and how much Salem is to be paid for his work as an informant, with Salem offering a hypothetical situation as an example of how all this could blow up in the FBI's face, as part of his effort to get paid in the way he wants to be paid. (Listen to the actual MP3s, rather than just reading the excerpt quoted on the wikipedia page.)

The book The Cell goes into a lot of depth about investigations into the 1993 bombings, the assassination of Meir Kahane and a number of other pre-9/11 plots. It includes a lot more information about the history of Emad Salem's relationship with the FBI, as well.

I'm sure that book is considered pure propaganda by a lot of people (particularly since one of the authors later became a spokesperson for the FBI), but I thought it was a good read, and its narrative seemed pretty credible to me. Some of what it reported has since been shown to be inaccurate and/or incomplete, but not in a way that suggests the authors were being intentionally misleading -- just that new facts have surfaced that they weren't aware of when they wrote the book. It certainly doesn't paint either the FBI or CIA in a very positive light, but it pegs incompetence and risk aversion as the primary causes of their lack efficacy, rather than a nefarious conspiracy to kill their fellow Americans.

I'm not entirely closed to the idea that there was more to these attacks than what we've been told, I just think that what has been omitted from the story is more likely to be additional evidence of insanely poor judgment and/or outright incompetence at FBI and CIA than it is to be some cloak and dagger conspiracy involving remote control planes, cruise missiles, the Mossad, voice simulators, holographic planes, grey aliens, and/or the Nabisco Corp. :2 cents:

u-Bob 03-21-2012 11:01 AM

50 :)

Quentin 03-21-2012 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips (Post 18836817)
How many times has the FBI been caught creating up these plots and then acting like heroes? Time and time again

When the "plot" in question is like the one in Miami that was described by the FBI as "more aspirational than operational," then I think you have a point... but who got to act like a hero after failing to stop the 1993 attacks? How about after failing to stop 9/11?

If the reason they cook up the attacks is to look like heroes, then allowing the attacks they plan to actually take place is a rather odd way to create an impression of their heroism, isn't it?

I think there's plenty of legitimate criticism to be had of the FBI, CIA and the "war on terror" generally; but I also think that discussions of the wilder, more elaborate conspiracy theories tend to distract from the troublesome questions that really should be asked and answered -- like just how much the CIA really knew about Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, the two hijackers they had under surveillance in Kaula Lumpur, and who they knew were in the U.S. prior to the 9/11 attacks.

MediaGuy 03-21-2012 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin (Post 18836849)
When the "plot" in question is like the one in Miami that was described by the FBI as "more aspirational than operational," then I think you have a point... but who got to act like a hero after failing to stop the 1993 attacks? How about after failing to stop 9/11?

If the reason they cook up the attacks is to look like heroes, then allowing the attacks they plan to actually take place is a rather odd way to create an impression of their heroism, isn't it?

This is where the whole question of motive arises, and the question of *whose motive*?

With all the secretariate and directorate swaps happening (Patraeus is now CIA head, Panetta is Defense, Gates held both across two administrations) and the influence of the neo-cons across all security and intelligence arms of government, it makes you wonder on whose behalf the FBI is/was acting.

The FBI isn't entrapping people to make themselves look the hero, though that would be a residual effect; however all these "small" operations keep reminding people in the form of big headlines of the "War on Terror" and the need to ramp up security and maintain suspension of Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus. The smaller headlines about suspects being released for lack of evidence, or found not guilty, or simply the "involvement" of FBI informants as both enablers and recruiters, are always back-page peeps and hold no sway over the initial impact of the Big News.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin (Post 18836849)
I think there's plenty of legitimate criticism to be had of the FBI, CIA and the "war on terror" generally; but I also think that discussions of the wilder, more elaborate conspiracy theories tend to distract from the troublesome questions that really should be asked and answered -- like just how much the CIA really knew about Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, the two hijackers they had under surveillance in Kaula Lumpur, and who they knew were in the U.S. prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Clarke recently griped about this; and the whole FBI/CIA separation of jurisdictions seems to have been blurred. It's as if the Reagan Doctrine has been re-awakened and "foreign" means nothing anymore. Along with the NDAA, anyone inside the borders of the US can be surveilled, tracked, enabled, recruited and set loose within the US (and shrouded behind the veil of "National Security") with the same license the CIA had outside national borders during the cold war.

While the CIA may claim occultus privilegium about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdar, it was the FBI whose knowledge of those two was first revealed as they had been close to an FBI informant who was their landlord and confidante. Clarke complained that there was no way the CIA couldn't have known, and why he wasn't informed by them for some reason, rather than the FBI revelation years later.

During the joint inquiry post-9/11, the two Bobs (Graham and Kerry) were also made aware of much "sensitive" information of the sort, particularly regarding Saudi Arabia, but they couldn't tell anyone due to state secrecy (and I believe their deputization by the FBI, which made them criminally liable if they talked about anything that was redacted in their final report).

These "chess games" being played in part in the media, or the alternative media, seem bent on making any revelation of this sort appear "fringe" and "crackpot", even when the Richard Clarkes and other "insiders" actually come out; and not to invoke another conspiracy theory but as a "for example" in the same vein as the '93 WTC bombing and precursor to the steps ultimately taken after 9/11, the consequences of the Oklahoma City bombing and the "revelations" or insufficiently disclosed FBI knowledge (National Security again) from the indications that McVeigh wasn't alone and didn't set off the only explosives that day also dredge up the question of what motives would be behind FBI facilitation (fore- and post) of the potential and eventual events that day, and who was served by keeping the "official" story alive in the foreground, even if little spikes of secondary evidence blipped up in the background?

MediaGuy 03-23-2012 06:33 AM

So... nobody thinks the .93 bombing was suspicious?

NewNick 03-23-2012 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18840481)
So... nobody thinks the .93 bombing was suspicious?

I think your suspicious.

Grapesoda 03-23-2012 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin (Post 18835352)
The bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 something I don't see discussed much when people talk about 9/11 conspiracies, and I thought it would be interesting to hear what GFY's resident Truthers have to say on the subject.

So, what say you, conspiracy cognescenti; was the 1993 bombing a "false flag" operation, and/or an "inside job?" If so, what was the operation designed to do?

Was the 1993 bombing merely a not-as-successful-as-planned terrorist attack, as its alleged mastermind "Ramzi Yousef" (one of his many aliases) claimed, or is he just a patsy who craves attention... one who also doesn't mind spending the rest of his life in a supermax prison for a crime he did not commit?

I'm sick of reading about 9/11; let's hear some theories about 2/26!

yes, the bomb was 'inside'

NewNick 03-23-2012 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips (Post 18840512)
The plot was created by the FBI and allowed to happen by the FBI


How do you know this Johnnyboi ?

MediaGuy 03-23-2012 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 18840798)
How do you know this Johnnyboi ?

He doesn't.

However there is evidence that the FBI enabled the event:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/ny...ted=all&src=pm

And a subsequent pattern that points to FBI enablement:

http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...e-terror-plots

:D


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123