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.

 

Was The 1993 Trade Center Bombing A Diversion

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Its self evident, no further evidence needs to be applied, they're guilty as charged


edit on 6-1-2012 by sweetnlow because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I'm sceptical about the 1993 WTC bombing official story considering what happened in 2001. I would speculate the 1993 WTC bombing official story was probably watered down to stop the public from worrying about what actually took place. Much like in Oklahoma, it's likely there were secondary devices/incendiaries in place that failed, or the bomb was actually planted or built on site and Ramzi and friends had more access to the building that we were told. basically saying there was a much more involved attempt to take the towers down that was only thwarted because the feds got lucky, the ransom was met or the bad guys messed something up by the usual run of things.


note the amount of damage relative to the truck in this picture seems far greater than what should be expected from a truck bomb.

From looking at some of the pictures of the damage and listening to the people evacuated from those buildings sounded like far more could of been taking place than just a home made truck bomb in the basement. An example being people from the upper floors complaining of smoke and fire even though the bomb was in the basement (a bit like the jet fuel in the lobby story). The sheer amount of damage, and the seemingly massive attention it received from just about every law enforcement department going for such a seemingly minor occurrence - a truck bomb and a handful dead. Something that actually happens every day. Also, to give Ramzi some credit who's supposed to be some what of an explosives genius, I don't think he thought he could take down a building with just a single urea nitrate truck bomb, he probably would of learnt that from something like the Oklahoma City bombing. A far smaller building with a bomb about the same size. But then, we all know there were additional explosives in place that time too.


Perhaps nothing but there's also an odd statement by Ramzi Yousefs character in the prophetic 1997 film path to paradise where Ramzi Yousef mentioned something about bringing on a secondary explosion at the peak of the primary explosion that would bring down both towers. Secondary explosions? Who'd of thought!

And just to throw it out there, perhaps those 93 bombers took several bites out of the towers main support but that info was never released to public as it would probably be considered classified for national security purposes..!



edit on 6-1-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
ok prove to me there was not gold, I can prove to you there was www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center, owned by a group of commercial banks. The 1993 bomb detonated close to the vault, but it withstood the explosion, as did the towers. Seven weeks after the September 11th attacks, $230 million in precious metals were removed from basement vaults of 4 WTC, which included 3,800, 100-Troy-ounce registered gold bars and 30,000 1,000-ounce silver bars.
thus one must ask what about WTC7 and the twin tower vaults??? prove to me the Port Authority did not leave , I can prove they did. from the link

Privatization

In 1998, plans were approved by the Port Authority to privatize the World Trade Center. In 2001, the Port Authority sought to lease the World Trade Center to a private entity. Bids for the lease came from Vornado Realty Trust, a joint bid between Brookfield Properties and Boston Properties, and a joint bid by Silverstein Properties and The Westfield Group. By privatizing the World Trade Center, it would be added to the city's tax rolls. The lease was also intended to raise funds for other Port Authority projects.

On February 15, 2001, the Port Authority announced that Vornado Trust Realty had won the lease for the World Trade Center, paying $3.25 billion for the 99-year lease. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty. However, Vornado later withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001. The land was then privately owned.
this is when the EPA comes in They the new owners had to remove all the health hazards from all the buildings, EPA has no record of this, or I can not find one. just one more peace of the puzzle
edit on 6-1-2012 by bekod because: editting



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by sweetnlow
 





Yep
and that's how facts present themselves, Sherlock

Please feel free to present your facts. Other conspiracy websites don't count.


watch tv footage, skippy, from 9.11.2001.
if you don't see something fishy then, sorry to break it to you, you're an idiot.
or a liar.
whichever you prefer.

cheerio, skippy.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
now lets take a tip down the rabbit hole , who was to get the bid?? and who got it?? ok it is wiki but it does make the running around a bit easy en.wikipedia.org... from the link

On February 15, 2001, the Port Authority announced that Vornado Realty Trust had won the lease for the World Trade Center, paying $3.25 billion for the 99-year lease.[3] Silverstein Properties was outbid by $30 million by Vornado. However, Vornado balked over lease terms and possible tax liabilities that Silverstein was willing to accept.[4] Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.
and who owned the new owners? that being Silverstein Properties?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The World Trade Center Demolition as an Insurance Scam

Larry Silverstein and his partner Frank Lowy acquired a 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex just weeks before the 9/11/01 attack. The deal was negotiated by Lewis Eisenberg, the former chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Eisenberg was recently appointed chairman of the Republican National Committee. Eisenberg had resigned from Goldman Sachs in the 1980s after his secretary accused him of sexually harassing her. When New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman appointed Eisenberg chairman of the Port Authority, in February of 1996, Forbes Magazine wrote that it was "a strange political appointment, considering the part he played in the sex scandal that rocked Goldman and the financial community in the late 1980s."

Silverstein had built Seven World Trade Center in 1987 on property leased from the Port Authority, but the six-building World Trade Center complex remained under public control until Silverstein and Lowy obtained the 99-year lease on July 26, 2001. The new deal left Silverstein in control of 10.6 million square feet of WTC office space, and gave Lowy control of the 427,000-square-foot retail mall in the WTC basement.
Return on Investment

Slightly more than a year after the attack, The New York Times reported that developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre were close to receiving about $98 million from their down payment of $124 million toward the 99-year lease of the World Trade Center. Under the arrangement Silverstein would retain control over rebuilding office space at the site. 1

Lender GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation accused Silverstein of misallocating insurance awarded him for the 9/11/01 attack. In a complaint filed on Jan. 14, 2002 in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan the lender maintains Silverstein used some of the insurance money to pay lobbyists in Washington and Albany to limit his liability to the victims.

HMMMMMM smoking gun perhaps? 25,000,000 down payment for the trade centers, plus the profit on the steel, copper and aluminum at scrap, plus retain the leases, plus screw the families of the survivors, ETC ETC ETC

Silverstien knew that the buildings were terrorist targets, it has always been known to be so, so why then lease a liability and what insurance company in the right mind in the world would ever take on such a liability, let alone insure it???


edit on 6-1-2012 by sweetnlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetnlow
 


Silverstein still owes rent every month to the Port Authority for smoking holes in the ground

He is not receiving any money from tenents for leases, yet still owes hundreds of millions to the
Port Authority


Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.


Also Silverstein tried to skimp on the insurance for the WTC looking to purchase only 1.5 billion for each tower

The bankers putting up the money (Ally Bank, fornerly GMAC) insisted on 5 billion, before settling for 3.55 billion
for insuring each tower


In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding


Thats some scam - underinsuring the property, owing hundreds of millions in rent while receiving no income



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

you should know better than that
Silverstien has milked the monkey at every level of the game, and will continue
Why do you think he continues to pay for those leases, when he could have walked away from the entire deal on 911?



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetnlow
 
because the money spent now is Penney's when the new WTC is completed it will be $$$$ in return just an update for you that do not know www.panynj.gov... Tower one is at the 90th floor, from the link

lit with festive, colored lights to mark the upcoming holiday season.
the link has the pick if you want to see



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 

Exactly , now do you see the correlation? How good are you at deduction?



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetnlow
 
enough to know 2+2= 6, ok 5 but then add the one counting, In my simple terms of understating what went down on 9/11, it was all
preplanned from the git go. on that day it so happens Mil and ERT, Emergency Response Teams are doing games. Then the "P" Act is drafted/ made law, less then 2months later, before all this, The upper floors are closed in 1993 due to the damage done from the truck bombing, all of this can be found on the web, and ask me if 2+2=6 one link that gives brief detail of why the upper floors where closed if you know any thing about lighting you must get in behind the walls. 911research.wtc7.net...












edit on 7-1-2012 by bekod because: editting



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 



From looking at some of the pictures of the damage and listening to the people evacuated from those buildings sounded like far more could of been taking place than just a home made truck bomb in the basement. An example being people from the upper floors complaining of smoke and fire even though the bomb was in the basement (a bit like the jet fuel in the lobby story). The sheer amount of damage, and the seemingly massive attention it received from just about every law enforcement department going for such a seemingly minor occurrence - a truck bomb and a handful dead. Something that actually happens every day. Also, to give Ramzi some credit who's supposed to be some what of an explosives genius, I don't think he thought he could take down a building with just a single urea nitrate truck bomb, he probably would of learnt that from something like the Oklahoma City bombing. A far smaller building with a bomb about the same size. But then, we all know there were additional explosives in place that time too.


One - damage from the WTC was magnified by fact that took place in enclosed garage which confined the
explosion

Two - Oklahoma City bomb was 3 x the size of WTC, almost 6,000 lbs, It was also outside on street which
disapated some of the blast

Three - The smoke. Large buildings create what is called "stack effect" where acts like chimney funneling
smoke upwards

en.wikipedia.org...

Example of this is MGM Grand Hotel fire (1980) in LasVegas killing 85. Fire was on ground floor casino, most
of the dead on the upper floors died from smoke which rose up

That is why many of the people on upper floors complained of smoke filling building

Four - when was last time massive truck bomb went off in American City, Not a common occurance which is
why law enforcement went bat sh*t

Not being paranoid conspiracy loon have trouble underatsnding your take .......



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

then you might try seeing an annalist to help bring you out of the smoke and mirrors



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by samkent
It’s amazing how circular the logic of the delusional can be.
Especially since the delusional don’t have one shred of evidence.
They run on hunches.


Not saying the OP is right, but where is your evidence that this is delusional logic?

Do you just throw everything out that doesn't fit the OS as 'delusional'? (don't answer that, we know you do)


The answer to that is easy.. the OP makes up a completely false claim in that the FBI supposedly build the bomb that blew up the WTC, which about 300 people here on ATS already pointed out was a dummy bomb the FBI wanted to supply them to catch them in the act (the same way they caught that "christmas tree" bomber last year). Then, he uses that to drop innuendo of impropriety by stating "that sounds suspicious to me", and he in turn uses THAT to post a rhetorical question of whether "the 1993 attack was a diversion".

In short, we're seeing nothing but lies, innuendo dropping, and rhetorical questions entirely based upon the OP's own make believe, so it's self evident the OP is doing this NOT becuase he wants to discuss the events of 9/11. He's attempting to invent his own verson of what happened on 9/11 that's completely separate from reality, and although this is by definition is "delusional", I don't agree that the OP is being delusional. The OP is simply being gullible, as it's all but an established fact that he got this whole bit off one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing out abject paranoia to make a fast buck and the OP is simply lapping it up like a kitten laps up a saucer of milk.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Maybe i know more about it than you and most everyone else
did you ever think of that???

its true i asked the question, but i already knew the answers




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetnlow
 





Maybe i know more about it than you and most everyone else
did you ever think of that???

If your knowledge of contract law is any example then it's doubtful you know anything more than others on here. And it's certain that you know less than a few on here.

Just because the building goes away doesn't mean Silverstein can ignor his obligation to pay his part of the contract. That's why he bought insurance. No surprise, no conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetnlow
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Maybe i know more about it than you and most everyone else
did you ever think of that???


The moment you said "the bomb was built by the FBI" you've irrefutably shown that isn't the case. In fact it was your fellow conspiracy theorists here who first informed me that the FBI had the chance to usurp the first WTC bombing in 1993 by supplying the bombers with a fake bomb, but a nitwit FBI supervisor (who has since crawled back under his rock) cancelled it because he didn't think the threat of an attack as credible. The REAL version of events therefore was that the FBI built a FAKE bomb but becuase of a clueless supervisor it was never given to the perps. Since then, the FBI has successfully used the sting to nail that guy who wanted to set off a bomb during a Christmas Tree lighting in Utah, last year.

The remainder of your post was nothing but a dog pile of innuendo and rhetorical questions, so you can hardly claim "you know much more about it than me when you're ASKING "was the 1993 trade center bombing a diversion" rather than SAYING "the 1993 trade center bombing was a diversion".



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetnlow


its true i asked the question, but i already knew the answers



C'mon, I'm just asking questions too-


Are the no-planers a cult, or just an unaffiliated scattering of mentally ill individuals?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


What you are talking about is a separate yet linked incident called "Bridge and Tunnel Plot" where same
gang of Islamic militants under "the Blind Sheik - Omar Abdel Rahman " planned a series of bombing at
various bridges, tunnels and other sites around New York


--April – June 23, 1993

Militants plan a series of near simultaneous bombings in New York. Among the targets were prominent New York monuments: The Lincoln and Holland tunnels linking New York to New Jersey, the George Washington Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, the United Nations, the last to be planted with the help of diplomats from the Sudanese mission, the Federal Building at 26 Federal Plaza, and finally, one in the Diamond District along 47th Street, populated by mostly Jewish diamond dealers. On June 23, as terrorists mix chemicals for the bombs, FBI agents raid their warehouse and arrest twelve.
[/ex

Unlike the WTC bomb plot where FBI dismissed an informant who told them of plot the FBI responded
vigorously. They used the informant to penetrate the group, them had the informant send them a denaturated
batch of chemicals (which would not explode) to build their bombs. Once had enough evidence busted entire
gang


After the first World Trade Center bombing in February 1993, the FBI began to investigate Rahman and his followers more closely. With the assistance of an Egyptian informant wearing a listening device, the FBI managed to record Rahman issuing a fatwa encouraging acts of violence against US civilian targets, particularly in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area. The most startling plan, the government charged, was to set off five bombs in 10 minutes, blowing up the United Nations, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and a federal building housing the FBI.[not in citation given] Government prosecutors showed videotapes of defendants mixing bomb ingredients in a garage before their arrest in 1993.[Rahman was arrested on 24 June 1993, along with nine of his followers. On 1 October 1995, he was convicted of seditious conspiracy, and in 1996 was sentenced to life in prison.


en.wikipedia.org...

The Blind Sheik is currently locked up in super max prison for life

Truthers, most of whom have a problem with logical thinking, conflate the two incidents, claiming FBI built
bomb which exploded at WTC



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


What you are talking about is a separate yet linked incident called "Bridge and Tunnel Plot" where same
gang of Islamic militants under "the Blind Sheik - Omar Abdel Rahman " planned a series of bombing at
various bridges, tunnels and other sites around New York


No, what I'm talking about is FBI informant Emad Salem and his involvement with the 1993 bombing of the WTC, which the conspiracy mongors are deliberately misrepresenting for their sick political agenda. He reported to the FBI that he was neck deep in the operation and he recommended to his handlers to supply him with a phony bomb so the FBI could catch the bombers in the act, and his handlers (one of them being FBI agent Nancy Floyd) were planning to follow through, but her own FBI supervisor in charge of the operation didn't take the threat of the attack seriously so he called it off. What makes Emad Salem's statements credible is that he had the forethought to actually record his conversations with the FBI, which he forwarded to the New York Times and they ran a story on it.

After the bombing, Salem anguished to one FBI agent, “You were informed. Everything is ready. The day and the time. Boom. Lock them up and that’s that. That’s why I feel so bad.” On another tape, Salem asked an FBI agent, “Do you deny your supervisor is the main reason of bombing the World Trade Center?” The agent did not deny Salem’s charge. Shortly after the bombing FBI agent Nancy Floyd confided to Salem that her supervisors had botched the case:

I felt that the people on the squad, that they didn’t have a clue of how to operate things. That the supervisors didn’t know what was going on. That they hadn’t taken the time to learn the history.

It was never clear to what extent Salem instigated the bombing, as opposed to simply reporting on the plot to his FBI controllers.

Before the bombing, he offered to do a switcheroo on the bombers, substituting a harmless powder for the deadly explosives and thereby preventing any potential catastrophe. The FBI spurned his offer. The New York Times October 28, 1993, article with this revelation was .lined, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast.” Salem complained to one FBI agent that an FBI supervisor “requested to make me to testify [in public] and if he didn’t push for that, we’ll be going building the bomb with a phony powder and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But … we didn’t do that.”


The article goes on to say that the FBI captured 47 boxes of papers from a suspect's apartment that would eventually show a clear roadmap of what the 1993 bombers were planning, but the FBI couldn't read them until it was too late because they were in Arabic.

You can get more details from FBI Blunders and the first WTC bombing but you can find as much information as you'd like by doing a Google search on Emad Salem. Unlike that crackpot Alex Jones and his "sinister secret plots to take over the world" baloney, this guy has the recorded proof as well as the New York Times backing his claim. Plus, this tactic he was going to use was successfully used to nail the Christmas tree bomber in Utah so it shows the guy was legit right there.

So, when I say that the 9/11 attack succeeded because of monumental gov't foulups and blunders, and that the "real" conspiracy you're looking for is that they're going full steam in covering up their foulups and blunders, I'm saying it because there is a real world documented precedent for it. On the other hand, can the conspiracy mongors give me even ONE precedent where anyone was able to successfully sneak into an occupied building to plant controlled demolitions without anyone noticing them? Just one. Any one will do.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join