Why do many people fail to acknowledge the 1993 bombing?

Its almost like it never existed to you conspiracy theorists. Where are the 2/26 truthers? Conspiracy theorists make claims that 9/11 was an inside job, I want you to explain the 2/26 bombing. Do you think this failed attempt at trying to make the towers fall an inside job too? Don't give me links for this one, I joined ATS to hear from ATS, not from some other site.

reply to post by Mythic Chris


well,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

odd.. I thought there would be more threads. I recall reading about it alot a few years ago, but can't seem to find them.

Conspiracies about 1993 derive from this story I think.

But ultimately, in 1993, the towers didn't fall and 3000 people didn't die. Only 6, perhaps thats why its hardly mentioned, when you consider what its compared to.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Myendica]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Myendica]

i think it is out of convenience, how else could explosives be put inside the buildings, remember they were closed to the public so this would be the time to plant them if they were planted, this would explain the residue found at the site, but then again if you were to take all things inside the building and the planes i am sure the would be traces of explosives.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by bekod]

reply to post by Myendica


well this takes the cake i tried to find all related news reports of that day well i had to go to NY times and only got building 7 never closed, form the day of the bombing till the end of march? WTC was closed to the public. repair crews order out this was on the 1 of march not till the 10th of march could i find repair crews are hard at it, now from the 28 of feb till the 10 of march is how long? 11 days, does that tell you any thing.

reply to post by Mythic Chris


The terrorists bought some of their materials, tanks of compressed hydrogen, at local welding supply place just down the road from me.
Know someone who worked there - everyone there was questioned by
FBI. Salesman who wrote out the order was witness at trial.

Three tanks of bottled hydrogen were also placed in a circular configuration around the main charge, to enhance the fireball and afterburn of the solid metal particles. The use of compressed gas cylinders in this type of attack closely resembles the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing 10 years earlier. Both of these attacks used compressed gas cylinders to create fuel-air and thermobaric bombs[16] that release more energy than conventional high explosives. According to testimony in the bomb trial, only once before the 1993 attack had the FBI recorded a bomb that used urea nitrate.

Another friend was paralegal at Allied Signal where Nidal Ayyad, one of bombers worked as engineer, Watched as FBI marched in and arrested him

People screaming about "inside job" are idiots.....

Building 7 isn't even on the same block so I fail to see a reason why they would close it. If Building 7 needed to be closed then so would the Deutsche bank building since they are both significant structures and both around the same distance away from the two towers. The Deutsche bank building is another thing conspiracy theorists don't talk about, it was severely damaged during the 9/11 attacks, so bad that it was condemned. Why is it so surprising that WTC 7 collapsed? It was the same distance as the bank, not only that but the building was also on fire and had a 10 story gash in it.

I want answers.

reply to post by bekod

well this takes the cake i tried to find all related news reports of that day well i had to go to NY times and only got building 7 never closed, form the day of the bombing till the end of march?

Thats because WTC 7 is/was 300 ft north of the towers and not affected by the bomb. Why close an undamaged building?

Because it's inconvenient for the narrative that most Truthers want to believe?

reply to post by Mythic Chris

Building 7 isn't even on the same block so I fail to see a reason why they would close it. If Building 7 needed to be closed then so would the Deutsche bank building since they are both significant structures and both around the same distance away from the two towers. The Deutsche bank building is another thing conspiracy theorists don't talk about, it was severely damaged during the 9/11 attacks, so bad that it was condemned. Why is it so surprising that WTC 7 collapsed? It was the same distance as the bank, not only that but the building was also on fire and had a 10 story gash in it.

Simple answer different construction styles

Deutsche Bank aka Bankers Trust aka 130 Liberty St was built in 1971

Did not have the long span transfer beams and structure to support it like WTC 7 which put enormous strain on the beams.

Also 130 Liberty did not catch fire, it suffered severe structural damage
from debris falling from WTC 2 (South) tower. It was fire, unfought by FDNY, which finished off WTC 7

Here is description of the damage

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Mythic Chris

 

Building 7 isn't even on the same block so I fail to see a reason why they would close it. If Building 7 needed to be closed then so would the Deutsche bank building since they are both significant structures and both around the same distance away from the two towers. The Deutsche bank building is another thing conspiracy theorists don't talk about, it was severely damaged during the 9/11 attacks, so bad that it was condemned. Why is it so surprising that WTC 7 collapsed? It was the same distance as the bank, not only that but the building was also on fire and had a 10 story gash in it.

Simple answer different construction styles

Deutsche Bank aka Bankers Trust aka 130 Liberty St was built in 1971

Did not have the long span transfer beams and structure to support it like WTC 7 which put enormous strain on the beams.

Also 130 Liberty did not catch fire, it suffered severe structural damage
from debris falling from WTC 2 (South) tower. It was fire, unfought by FDNY, which finished off WTC 7

Here is description of the damage

911research.wtc7.net...

You misread my post, I didn't say 130 liberty was on fire. I said WTC 7 was on fire and had a 10 floor gash.

Well so much for "no links ", I guess that is thrown out of the window.

Hi everyone,

It's a complex question that you have asked OP and it might be beneficial for everyone if you really deconstructed it because to me it seems loaded with assumptions and maybe even reframe what you are saying and do an edward de bono style point of view exercise. To me ( and this is only MHO) truthers are a very broad movement, imagine and the left/right paradigm of politics, and it also contains a scale of people with different levels of IQ and emotional intelligence but its important to understand basic human behaviour which in essence on your question, most people don't examine what it not in front of their eyes...which when you think, its like rumsfield, unknown unknowns you know.

Without research how can one reach an understanding, and I'm busy listening to RZA.

Peace

I heard one conspiracy theory that claimed the 1993 blast was necessary to remove garage floors creating a debris pit for a future controlled demolition.
The timing doesn't make much sense unless it was meant as some kind of warning. I doubt anyone knows the whole truth if this was all some kind of "government project" the information must have been classified and extremely compartmentalized.

Originally posted by Mythic Chris
The Deutsche bank building is another thing conspiracy theorists don't talk about, it was severely damaged during the 9/11 attacks, so bad that it was condemned. Why is it so surprising that WTC 7 collapsed? It was the same distance as the bank, not only that but the building was also on fire and had a 10 story gash in it.

I don't think it's as surprising that WTC 7 collapsed but rather how and when it collapsed. Any other buildings that fell did so when the towers fell and crushed them. The Deutsche Bank isn't discussed because it was damaged and condemned, which can be understood, but it didn't fall and more importantly it didn't fall in a questionable fashion. What makes it different from any number of buildings that were damaged and not discussed? What are your thoughts on why it should be discussed?

Regarding the '93 bombing, I honestly never thought much about it relating to a conspiracy theory. While I was old enough to think about it I accepted and trusted the MSM without much thought almost 20 years ago.



[edit on 8/20/2010 by Three_moons]

Originally posted by Three_moons

Originally posted by Mythic Chris
The Deutsche bank building is another thing conspiracy theorists don't talk about, it was severely damaged during the 9/11 attacks, so bad that it was condemned. Why is it so surprising that WTC 7 collapsed? It was the same distance as the bank, not only that but the building was also on fire and had a 10 story gash in it.

I don't think it's as surprising that WTC 7 collapsed but rather how it collapsed. The Deutsche Bank isn't discussed because it was damaged and condemned, which can be understood, but it didn't fall and more importantly it didn't fall in a questionable fashion. What makes it different from any number of buildings that were damaged and not discussed? What are your thoughts on why it should be discussed?

Regarding the '93 bombing, I honestly never thought much about it relating to a conspiracy theory. While I was old enough to think about it I accepted and trusted the MSM without much thought almost 20 years ago.

I talk about the bank because it was just as close as WTC 7 and was damaged badly enough to be condemned, If the bank caught on fire on that day and firefighters didn't fight it, would it fall? Yes it would I, the avalanche of debris was powerful enough to leave it badly damage, if you threw in an uncontrolled fire then the building would come down.




[edit on 20-8-2010 by Mythic Chris]

reply to post by Mythic Chris

I really don't intend to get far off of your intended thread topic but didn't firefighters fight WTC 7 and it still fell in a questionable manner? And I question if you, or anyone, could factually answer "If the bank caught on fire on that day and firefighters didn't fight it, would it fall?" or come to the conclusion that "if you threw in an uncontrolled fire then the building would come down."


[edit on 8/20/2010 by Three_moons]

reply to post by Mythic Chris


1993 bombing showed a failed bombing and also showed how terrorists couldn't destroy an entire building.

Originally posted by Mythic Chris

Originally posted by Three_moons

Originally posted by Mythic Chris
The Deutsche bank building is another thing conspiracy theorists don't talk about, it was severely damaged during the 9/11 attacks, so bad that it was condemned. Why is it so surprising that WTC 7 collapsed? It was the same distance as the bank, not only that but the building was also on fire and had a 10 story gash in it.

I don't think it's as surprising that WTC 7 collapsed but rather how it collapsed. The Deutsche Bank isn't discussed because it was damaged and condemned, which can be understood, but it didn't fall and more importantly it didn't fall in a questionable fashion. What makes it different from any number of buildings that were damaged and not discussed? What are your thoughts on why it should be discussed?

Regarding the '93 bombing, I honestly never thought much about it relating to a conspiracy theory. While I was old enough to think about it I accepted and trusted the MSM without much thought almost 20 years ago.

I talk about the bank because it was just as close as WTC 7 and was damaged badly enough to be condemned, If the bank caught on fire on that day and firefighters didn't fight it, would it fall? Yes it would I, the avalanche of debris was powerful enough to leave it badly damage, if you threw in an uncontrolled fire then the building would come down.




[edit on 20-8-2010 by Mythic Chris]

LOL I guess you didn't see that thread where an engineer proved that fire couldn't take down those beams.

Originally posted by Mythic Chris
Its almost like it never existed to you conspiracy theorists. Where are the 2/26 truthers? Conspiracy theorists make claims that 9/11 was an inside job, I want you to explain the 2/26 bombing. Do you think this failed attempt at trying to make the towers fall an inside job too? Don't give me links for this one, I joined ATS to hear from ATS, not from some other site.

if anyone has posted this i am sorry i just have not had the time to read everything ,but was their not a load of gold under the wtc buildings ? what ever happend to that ? ,i have not heard anything about it ? also who know maybe it was a test , for 911, who was in office at that time ?

Originally posted by Nephi1337

Originally posted by Mythic Chris
Its almost like it never existed to you conspiracy theorists. Where are the 2/26 truthers? Conspiracy theorists make claims that 9/11 was an inside job, I want you to explain the 2/26 bombing. Do you think this failed attempt at trying to make the towers fall an inside job too? Don't give me links for this one, I joined ATS to hear from ATS, not from some other site.

if anyone has posted this i am sorry i just have not had the time to read everything ,but was their not a load of gold under the wtc buildings ? what ever happend to that ? ,i have not heard anything about it ? also who know maybe it was a test , for 911, who was in office at that time ?

It was in WTC 4, not in the towers that were targeted(WTC 1 and 2)

reply to post by Mythic Chris



who was in office at that time ? bush sir?