If 9/11 was an "inside job" was the 1993 bombing of the WTC one, as well?
 

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 false flag to terrorize the people and make them clamor for a police state.

beta test

I, for one, welcome our reptilian overlords

:1orglaugh

And here we go again!!

Feb 26th WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! Feb 26 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!

Where's my Alex Jones megaphone

No, but the bankjob inside the wtc was an inside job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Ba...merica_robbery

Same old pattern if you think the US government did it.

1993 would therefore be a democrat administration trying it and failing as always.
2001 would be republicans succeeding.

Or it could be, oh I don't know, fucking terroists perhaps? Osama bin laden maybe?

This post is a reading comprehension test. I am not being serious. If you take this post seriously, please read it again.

There are, on both sides of this conjecture, scientists and engineers, as well as capable historians, reporters, and analysts. There are pieces of the proof that appear definitive on either side. The "9/11 went as it is commonly believed to have gone" folks have displayed an interest in the truth, and have seemed to rely at least some on common sense. The "9/11 was masterminded by someone other than is commonly believed" folks seem to be creating their ideas from a more emotional place. That doesn't mean they're not correct. Neither side has been able to definitively abrogate the other's case.

i dont believe so...thus the total failure.
they installed bomb sniffing dogs in there after that. They had to bring in a Bush to get the dogs out 6 months before 9/11

that is just purely coincidence though

yup. the government is a total failure at everything except when it comes to false flag operations where they now have superhuman powers.

why are you do dumb?

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.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspir...oid_style.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Par...rican_Politics

classic essay still relevant as most of those themes still exist just in newer forms.

All countries have their losers, and America is no exception. Maybe the US government subsidizes ours with greater generosity, so that is why they have the time to dream up such tomfoolery.

If 9/11 were a conspiracy, imagine the size of it! It would have involved thousands of people. How come there is no evidence of that?

The US government can't even keep its diplomatic cables secret, how could they have pulled this off?

I read it. Very interesting stuff PJ thanks for posting that.

Do you read that while sucking your thumb?

Nah I read it while sipping my coffee.

It's not because Porno Jew says it's a classic essay than it is lol... reads like an editorial piece you may find in newsweek, washpo or NewYork Time... Thin as paper, no substance, dishonest... this is aimed at people like porno jew who like to be spoon fed reassuring bullshit without ever questioning what they are told..

i've questioned more than you ever learnt moron. go play with the half-educated inbred fucks at the prison planet forum and leave the thinking to the grown ups.

I don't believe everything I read. However it is an interesting perspective for me to take into account and I do see many themes in that essay in this forum very often.

Its a complicated world of grey where people argue in black and white.

haha... the gown ups? Sounds like that something you've heard many time at your home eh?... I'm very sorry for that... Anyway, you are a lost cause, probably a troll, and I'll let you enjoy yourself in that fantasy world of yours... where you have I'm sure a 180 IQ and questioning all sorts of things...

whats your problem with the links he posted ?

you dont think most, if not all , western countries have paranoid style of governments ?

The writer pretty much claims that in politics, there's no conspiracy, in other words, no powerful men conspiring with each others to acquire even more power... Something that has been going on since the beginning of time... And those who see anything resembling that are either overly partisan or of course paranoid..

This is not to be confused with the US government for exemple, neocons or neolibs selling you their agenda thru fear.... (ex.: Iran will get us!!)

That quote was pretty funny I thought...
"..has been dominated by men who were shrewdly and consistently selling out American national interests."

lol those paranoids!!

It amazes me seemingly intelligent people believe this absolute bullshit about 9/11. In the end, I suppose, people will believe whatever they want to believe

le sigh

i for one hope you are totally right man

Yes - but you also think that Hitler did not do it and Santorum is as big a mass murderer as Stalin. (I would love to see what his lawyers say about that one !)

You also think that you are the one with the inside track on all this and that anyone who believes the official versionof anything is a brain washed idiot. (oh but Hiroshima did actually happen the way the history books say right ?)



:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

gov is getting sloppier with their cover stories i'll say that

pretty sure remembering the 93 bombing was planned under fbi watch so not a very good example lol

The moon landings, the grassy knoll, the Holocaust, relentless Alien abduction, 911, Elvis alive and well and living in Droitwich, Michael Jackson simply misunderstood, the list goes on and on and on...........

Only in America !

Make of it what you will:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/ny...ted=all&src=pm

It may have been a bad call they don't want to own up to, but has it become a policy or strategy?:

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

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

:D

about 9/11:
Was there a conspiracy? Of course. Unless you think that one and the same individual hijacked all 4 planes, there was by definition a conspiracy.

Was there a cover up? Most probably yes. It's said that every success has many fathers, but every failure's an orphan. In every organization, when something goes right, when a project is successful or profitable, there will be many people ready to take the credit. When something goes wrong, most people will distance themselves. When something goes wrong most people will deny they were responsible. When something goes terribly wrong most people will even try to hide the fact that they were involved or might have had the opportunity to prevent the bad things from happening. This is especially true of large bureaucratic structures.

Regarding conspiracies, asking questions and integrity:
Butler Shaffer's spot on:

pt 2:

what conspiracy? LOL don't flatter yourselves...

they already tax the shit out of you, rape your countries economy like a congo whore, enslave your people with national debt, bomb the shit out of defenseless 3rd world resource rich countries and even when it all fails its "too big to fail" and you get to pick up the tab...

you really think they need to pretend anything? you really think they are afraid of your reaction? :1orglaugh what conspiracy? LOL you guys are too much in debt and too scared to rock the boat LOL...you have had the same outfit in power for the last 50 years...

shut up dummy. that article wasn't written by a government "spokes" person.

I've never given this any thought, and I'm guessing very few have. The original bombing of the WTC was a news blip back then, and under reported.

The difference is 9/11 was recorded from dozens of directions, on video, so we can go back and question everything one frame at a time.

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

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:

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:

50 :)

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.

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.

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?

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

I think your suspicious.

yes, the bomb was 'inside'

How do you know this Johnnyboi ?