It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do many people fail to acknowledge the 1993 bombing?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Good job OP, you just showed that YOU are the one who knows nothing about the 1993 bombing.

Look up "Emad Salem." The FBI's informant to the alleged "terrorist cell" that bombed the towers. The FBI was actively working with them through Salem (pronounced sa-LAAM, not SAY-lem, he was Arabic), trying to give him a non-functioning bomb to the suspects. Instead they allegedly got a real one somehow and the rest is history.

Salem backed out of the whole thing when he became suspicious of the FBI's true intentions, and he also started recording his phone conversations with them to protect himself in court, just exactly as he would have to.



Edit to add, that's probably why you never hear about it.

Because you wouldn't want to anyway.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Good job OP, you just showed that YOU are the one who knows nothing about the 1993 bombing.

Look up "Emad Salem." The FBI's informant to the alleged "terrorist cell" that bombed the towers. The FBI was actively working with them through Salem (pronounced sa-LAAM, not SAY-lem, he was Arabic), trying to give him a non-functioning bomb to the suspects. Instead they allegedly got a real one somehow and the rest is history.

Salem backed out of the whole thing when he became suspicious of the FBI's true intentions, and he also started recording his phone conversations with them to protect himself in court, just exactly as he would have to.



Edit to add, that's probably why you never hear about it.

Because you wouldn't want to anyway.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]


I want to hear about the 1993 bombing, its the sole reason why I created this thread. I want to talk about this damn bombing and how its related to 9/11. I want to hear ATS's opinion.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Nephi1337
 

in 1993 it was Bill J Clinton the 42nd pres of the USA, as far as the gold it was removed as far as i can recall to the fed resv bank, were it is to day???? and if it was "real" gold, any one remember that conspiracy?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythic Chris
 


Ok, I'll bite, but first I gotta say: If you think that ATS is of the same united opinion, about anything, much less 9/11, you will be sadly mistaken. Also, ATS'ers don't take to kindly to threads where the OP is demanding other members to do research and theorize for him/her just because the OP asks.

That being said, I'm not even sure what your asking for, you have to be a little more specific than "wanting to hear about the damn bombing". There is plenty of information out there regarding the type of bomb used and it's blast damage that it produced.

Now as far as how it is related to 9/11...well that's a tricky question, depending on who you asked I would imagine most would probably say there is no connection between the 93 and 9/11 attacks, other than the fact they were done by so called terrorists. Then there might be a few, like me, who would say that there could be a possible connection. But of course this depends on who's version of what happened you believe.

That being said, the obvious connection would be KSM, apparently KSM was Ramzi Yousefs uncle. More importantly, they were always collaborating on terrorist attacks. There is evidence that suggests that KSM was definitely involved with the planning of the 93 attacks. Evidence even suggests that the plans for a 9/11 style attack (Bojinka) were already made before the 93 attack. As I'm sure you know, KSM was allegedly the number 2 man involved with the 9/11 attacks, OBL being number one.

So one could understandably come to the conclusion that the 93 attacks and the 9/11 attacks are connected by KSM, who apparently was determined to see the towers fall....or so they say.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 





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."
[/quote

WTC 7 fires were not fought - FDNY tried to marshall enough manpower to make an attempt,but after finding standpipe systems shot - no water to
fight the fires the building was abandoned and left to burn The sprinklers systems had been destroyed by the collpase of the towers which cut the water mains fedding the sprinklers (and standpipe systems too) A rooftop water tank was able to feed some of the sprinklers on the upper floors, but once when dry fires were able to spread,




.So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle /e7bzp





posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
You want someone to rattle off about the bombing... fine. I'll do it.

Someone or some group of people put an unconventional bomb in the underground parking garage of the WTC Towers.

Witnesses said a vehicle pulled out of a parking space that belong to the Secret Service (the SS had offices at the WTC, like many other federal agencies). As soon as it pulled out, another vehicle matching the first one exactly parked in the same space, and the driver quickly got out and left the area. The blast came from that vehicle.

The FBI was trying to frame some patsies for the bombing, but the Middle-Eastern guy they were going through grew suspicious of their stated intentions and started recording their phone conversations, so the whole thing backfired on them.

A scientist named Dr. Whitehurst also testified in court to be approached by two FBI agents who tried to "persuade" him with threats to stop investigating what type of bomb was used by the "terrorists." They told him it was a particular bomb, even though he told them there was no evidence of that and it didn't match the evidence. They told him there was no need for him to further investigate the bombing and his work was done. Dr. Whitehurst was never able to come to a solid conclusion.


So

1) The FBI was already involved with the alleged cell and thus had something to do with the whole affair, by their own admission, and this is the "official story."

2) The FBI went out of their way to try to prevent the public from learning what type of bomb actually detonated.

3) The FBI stated they were initially going to supply the alleged terrorist cell a non-functional bomb, to then arrest them. It was before this exact event that their own informant grew suspicious of their intentions and became uncooperative.

3) Someone went out of their way to disguise or conceal the vehicle that had the explosive up until seconds before it was to go off. And all of this happened in a Secret Service space. Who would be comfortable using THAT space for such a diversion? A federal agent, or a terrorist?


1993 bombing = also inside job, but a lot less dramatic, less organized, less successful, and the FBI had to admit to their role because of their informant turning on them.

I think 9/11 was less directed by the FBI or any government agency, and more by military/intelligence groups who know the insides and outs of domestic covert operations.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join