The 1993 World Trade Center Attack – An Inside Job?

On February 26, 1993, a truck loaded with a 700 kg urea nitrate bomb drove into the underground car park and parked on level B2 under the north runway. The vehicle detonated at 12:27 p.m. and blew a huge hole through 4 underground levels, but left the tower above undamaged. 

The aim of the Bombing

The aim was to collapse the north tower by blowing up the lower support pillars in such a way that it falls on the second tower and claims tens of thousands of deaths. However, this failed, the statics remained unaffected, so that ‘only’ six people were killed and over a thousand injured, the majority of them by inhaling the smoke that rose from the lower floors into the building. Another 50,000 had to be evacuated.

The attack was planned by a group of terrorists: Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Ahmed Ajaj. Funding is said to have received from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef’s uncle. You can look for them on wikipedia. In March 1994, four men, Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad, and Salameh, were arrested. The charges included conspiracy, explosive property destruction and interstate transport of explosives. In November 1997, two others were convicted: Ramzi Yousef, the thought leader behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck with the bomb.

The bomb hit a huge hole through four underground floors.

What was the role of the FBI?

To this day, several questions remain unanswered regarding the role of the FBI in the attack. Shortly after the attack, it became known that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem, who was part of the terror network that appeared to be behind the attacks. Salem warned the FBI in February 1992 that the plan was to build a bomb and blow up the World Trade Center. This warning should have made it possible for the FBI to slightly narrow down the number of possible assassins. Salem says that the FBI then planned through Salem to supply the conspirators with harmless powder that they would use to build the bomb instead of real explosives. However, they suddenly had other plans for him.

In October 1993, the New York Times wrote an article entitled, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast.” In that article, the Times reported:

“Law enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that would eventually be used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they were planning to thwart the conspiracy by secretly replacing the explosives with harmless powder, said an informant after the explosion. The informant was believed to have helped the conspirators build the bomb and deliver the counterfeit powder, but the plan was canceled by an FBI supervisor. The supervisor had different ideas about how the informant Emad A. Salem should be used, the informant said. “

Salem, a former Egyptian military officer, was recruited by the FBI to infiltrate an extremist Muslim group in the New York area that eventually bombed the WTC in 1993. After the bombing, Salem secretly began his talks with the FBI, apparently because of his frustration with the FBI’s failure to prevent the attack. These tapes indicate that the FBI had extensive knowledge of the WTC bombs and was able to prevent it from happening. Although when the FBI knew what exactly is difficult to say. In the tapes, while speaking with Salem, FBI agents seem to blame their failure on bombing prevention to be due to FBI incompetence and mismanagement.

Transcripts of the tapes show many conversations between Salem and FBI agent John Anticev. In a conversation Salem says to Anticev:

SALEM: Okay. I don’t think it was like that. If that’s what you think guys, fine, but I don’t think so because we’ve already started building the bomb that will go off in the World Trade Center. It was built under the supervision of the FBI and the DA . We were all informed and knew that the bomb was being built. By whom? From your confidential informant. What a wonderfully great case! And then he stuck his head in the sand. I said, “Oh, no, no, that’s not true, he’s a son of a bitch.” (Deep breath) Okay. It’s built differently in a different place and that’s it.

FBI: No, don’t make rash decisions. I’m just trying to be as honest with you as possible.

In other conversations, Salem repeatedly expressed remorse about the bombing and complained about the poor treatment of the case by the FBI. The New York Times reported:

 “Do you deny that your supervisor is the main reason you bombed the World Trade Center?” Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev did not deny it. “We handled the case perfectly until the supervisor came and turned it upside down.”

As reported by the NY Times, another agent, Nancy Floyd, told Salem:

“Hey, I mean, it wasn’t like you didn’t try and I didn’t try.” In an obvious reference to Mr Salem’s complaints. The supervisor, Agent Floyd, adds, “You can’t force people to do the right thing.”

It was even reported once on the TV news, but not mentioned again afterwards, so that it is quickly forgotten in the public debate. (Why?)
The tapes feature many more cases of Salem claiming that the FBI knew about the bombing and could have prevented it, but accused an unnamed supervisor for not preventing the attack. In some cases, Salem says an FBI agent would stop him from informing the FBI office in Washington of NYC activity because the NYC office would not like it. Quote:

“I don’t think the New York people want things to get out of the New York offices into Washington DC.” – Agent John Anticev

Salem was later a key witness in the trial of the men convicted of the bombings. Defense in the WTC bombing alleged that the Salem tapes showed evidence of the FBI’s entrapment. At least the tapes portray the FBI as seriously negligent in their dealings with the WTC terror network.

Two years later, in 1995, a whistleblower, a senior FBI lab manager and explosives expert, unpacked – Frederic Whitehurst. He told of biased law enforcement practices in the FBI laboratory that investigated, among other things, the 1993 WTC assassination.

The handling of the evidence in the WTC bombing would also be called into question thanks to the FBI’s whistleblowing expert and explosives expert Frederic Whitehurst. With approved performance reports, we know that the FBI valued Whitehurst and that he had a scientific understanding of explosive residues that no other laboratory could. However, Whitehurst was a thorn in the side of the FBI. In the 1995 WTC bombing case, Whitehurst testified in court that he was ordered by his superiors to ignore evidence that did not support the prosecution’s theory about the bombing. He said: “There was a lot of pressure on me to adapt my interpretation to what I wanted.”

Whitehurst’s 1995 testimony eventually led to an investigation by the Justice Department. The Washington Post published what the investigation found in a 517-page report of wrongdoing by the FBI. Swiss Post reports:

“For example, the head of the laboratory’s Explosives Division ‘repeatedly drew conclusions in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that incriminated the accused without scientific basis,” wrote Bromwich. The head of toxicology lacked judgment and credibility, and the results of the 1994 OJ-Simpson study were exaggerated. After the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the central FBI witness worked “backwards” and adjusted his testimony to achieve the desired result. Other agents “took” notes in an attempt to modify reports without the author’s permission, or failed to document or confirm their results. “

The consequences of Whitehurst’s whistleblowing went well beyond the case of the WTC. For much of his 10-year career as a laboratory manager, he has filed complaints about the FBI’s laboratory practices. In 2004 he testified that an FBI forensic scientist trained by him had lied under oath in the case of the OKC bombing. Whitehurst ultimately won a $ 1.1 million settlement from the FBI, though the FBI never admitted guilt or negligence. Today Whitehurst is credited with the fact that he shook up the FBI laboratory and forced significant changes and improved laboratory processes.

So is the FBI responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing? To a certain extent, yes. The FBI had an informant perfectly integrated into the terrorist network who carried out the bombing. This informant informed the FBI that bombings were going on and the informant knew who was involved. Yet the FBI either negligently dropped the ball in monitoring the terrorist network or dropped the ball deliberately, perhaps in hopes of gathering more evidence or bigger fish. It is also worth mentioning that prior to the WTC bombing, 47 unopened boxes were in the possession of the FBI; Boxes that had detailed plans for terrorist attacks on NYC landmarks. Allegedly the boxes were unopened because the FBI office in NYC had no one who could read Arabic.

Rowley revealed how the FBI DC office prevented her Minneapolis office from investigating one of the men who was later convicted and serving multiple life sentences for his role in 9/11. In both cases, the FBI appeared to be turning its back on clear evidence of terrorist attacks. Maybe the FBI will play a catch game and lose. Perhaps the FBI is overworked and damaged by too much red tape. Or maybe the answer lies in the warning Rowley gave in 2003. Rowley warned that the FBI will not be able to “halt the tide of terrorism that is likely to come upon us after an attack on Iraq.”

Then there is Ted Gunderson, former FBI Chief Agent, who announced in this interview that the Wtc Bombing 1993, Oklahoma City Bombing and 9/11, are ‘inside jobs’. Definitely worth the whole look.

Mohammed Salameh – perpetrator or scapegoat?

Whitehurst’s testimony also challenges the prosecution’s thesis that urea nitrate was used as an explosive in the bombing. Whitehurst testified that it was an ingredient that was rarely used and that the FBI would find difficult to detect in a laboratory. Prosecutors alleged traces of urea nitrate were found in the possession of a man who rented a van that prosecutors believed was carrying the WTC bomb. Oddly enough, despite the familiar nature of the bombing, the man, Mohammad Salameh, who rented the van from ‘Ryders’ returned to the rental center twice to ask for his deposit. He returned once before and after the bombing to report that his van was stolen and to ask for bail. He even submitted a police report at the request of the rental center. Does that sound like someone who just blew up the WTC? Shortly after the bombing, police tracked a chassis number of the Salameh rental car found in the rubble. The police then lured him a third time into the rental center and on this third occasion brought his rental papers with them, which, according to the prosecutor, contained traces of urea nitrate. The media was briefed, and a newscaster actually commented that Salameh, judging by what a patsy looked like, was so confused about the arrest. Indeed, it seems like Salameh is a scapegoat (patsy). A common tactic used by the military and the CIA in covert operations.

Whitehurst’s testimony also challenged this story, showing that urea nitrate was not a common ingredient in a bomb and, as noted, testified to the FBI’s troubling laboratory practices.

The question needs to be asked here: if Salameh had been involved in the bombing, he really would have been naive enough to give the office renter’s identity and address information for the rental car – which he did – and then try to get his bail after the explosion to bring back? And would he be foolish enough to be within a mile of a police officer and even report the car stolen if he’d known it was used in a bomb attack? Besides, if he were really the assassin, wouldn’t he have just stolen a car instead of renting one? And wouldn’t he have fled after the explosion?

At first glance, none of these go together; there has to be more to it. Indeed it is. Salameh gave an apartment in Jersey City as the address and phone number for Ryder paperwork. The apartment was rented from a Josie Hadas, an Israeli who is referred to as Salameh’s “landlady and boss”. In this apartment, the FBI claimed to have found a letter to Salameh and electronic equipment and tools that “indicated the presence of a bomb maker”. Salameh actually lived in a different apartment on the same block, but nothing unusual was found there.

In a March 14, 1993 article about the bombing by the Guardian Weekly, Josie Hadas was suspected of being “probably a Mossad agent”. However, most of the media remained silent about Ms. Hadas, who was never persecuted, caught or implicated in the crime.

After Salameh was arrested, police claimed they searched the files of a rental company and found a record linking Salameh to rental accommodation. During the search, they found chemicals and bomb-making equipment. They destroyed this important evidence “for security reasons”.

Salameh admitted that he actually worked on the property, but claimed that he did not brew explosives, but rather shampoo. The New York Times reported discovering that chemicals ordered for the rental accommodation were indeed common cleaning products.

Salameh’s arrest led investigators to arrest three other suspects: Egyptian taxi driver Mahmud Abouhalima, 34, a Palestinian chemical engineer and friend of Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, 25, and Palestinian Ahmed Ajaj, 27, who was a bit inappropriate at the time 6 months of the attack was in a US prison for a passport violation.

Pakistani Ramzi Yousef (25) and Jordanian Eyad Ismoil (22) were also on the FBI’s wanted list, but both had fled the country on the day of the bombing.

A seventh suspect, the American Abdul Yasin (33), was picked up by the FBI on the day of Salameh’s arrest and very cooperatively gave information about where and how the bomb was made, what the names and addresses of the others are. Oddly enough, the FBI fired him and he promptly fled to Iraq. He remains on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist List with a $ 5 million bounty.
The “seven-headed gang” of the WTC attack of 93.

The 7 perpetrators of the attack.

It took three trials to bring all of the conspirators to justice. Salameh and the other three arrested were tried and sentenced in October 1993. Yousef and Ismoil were finally captured, extradited and sentenced in November 1997. Each was sentenced to 240 years in prison without parole.

However, the trial of ‘Blind Sheikh’ Rahman in October 1995 was different. He was not convicted of direct involvement in the bombing, but of “serious conspiracy,” a secret judicial charge that merely planned a crime that was not necessarily attempted. A radical Islamist who preached in New York mosques attended by other conspirators was convicted of planning not only the attack on the WTC, but also the (foiled) bombings on the United Nations, the FBI headquarters, the Lincoln – and Holland Tunnel and a bridge connecting New Jersey to Manhattan – all on the same day! He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
Did the CIA “import” a known terrorist on purpose? Rahman entered the United States in 1990. That he was allowed to do so is deeply worrying. At the time he was the leader of an Egyptian jihad organization and had ties to Ayman al-Zawahiri, who later succeeded Osama bin Laden as al-Qaeda leader. He had also spent three years in Egyptian prisons waiting to be sentenced for issuing a fatwa that led to the 1981 assassination of Egyptian Prime Minister Anwar Sadat. He was on the US terrorist list with very good reason.

Why in the world was he allowed into the country? After the WTC bombing, it was found that he received most of his visa approvals from the CIA. The Egyptian officials confirmed that the CIA actually helped him.

According to the politician and activist Joe Calhoun, all of the attackers were on a CIA payroll in Afghanistan. Agent Nacy Floyd confirmed this, saying that some of the terrorists were trained by the CIA to fight in the war in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the CIA admitted to being partly responsible for the attack. Ron Kuby, defense attorney said of the WTC attack 93:

“The backers [of the 1993 WTC attack] are the United States government. It was a lazy government-engineered conspiracy from the start. Nothing would have come about if the government hadn’t planned it. “

Did the CIA have a hidden agenda to import jihadists into the US? If this was the case, the plan worked: The 93 WTC attack marked the beginning of the domestic “War on Terror”: A wake-up call to the Americans that they were no longer safe on their own soil

Explosive evidence of FBI collusion

Around the time Rahman came to the United States, Emad Salem, a colonel in the Egyptian intelligence service with experience in bomb-making, was employed as a mole in the ‘blind sheikh’ circle and became an informant for the FBI.

Salem was asked to encourage and involve Rahman and his followers in bitter activity and use a hidden microphone to record their conversations. He wriggled in the trust of Rahman, became his bodyguard, and used his line to him very effectively. His footage helped Rahman and his nine co-conspirators, who built bombs to blow up New York landmarks.

But what Salem’s FBI handlers didn’t know was that he recorded his conversations with them too – hundreds of hours. And when the transcripts were released, they turned out to be almost as explosive as the WTC explosive device. As the New York Times reported, the transcripts revealed that while the FBI knew the terrorists were planning to attack the WTC and built the bomb, their plan to stop the conspiracy by secretly replacing the explosives with a “harmless powder” was inexplicably put on hold by an FBI supervisor. It was as if the FBI could have prevented the attack and arrested all the perpetrators, but made a conscious decision against it, as this video clip confirms:

Unfair refusal to provide incriminating FBI evidence

As was to be expected, the secret audio recordings of Salem were admitted as evidence by the judge in the trial of the “blind sheikh”. A secret video showed conspirators actually making a bomb. One might also expect Salem’s recordings to be used as evidence of the defense in the Salameh et al. Have been admitted.

But no. In a blatant demonstration of judicial unfairness, as confirmed by Mohammad Salameh’s attorney Robert Precht in the clip above, the defense was denied access to them.

This was just one example of the judicial inequalities that the defendants faced. In fact, Precht felt compelled to write a book about the process to expose it:

” Defense of Mohammad: Justice in Court.”

Precht tells how the judge was determined to get convictions; how open the court’s prejudices were in favor of the public prosecutor’s office:

The four defendants were denied representation by a suitably experienced lawyer. They faced inexperienced attorneys (without charge) who the court wouldn’t even charge them with. Precht himself was just a public defender of the Legal Aid Society in New York.

-The judge ordered extraordinary penalties for any leaks from the trial, but used them only in defense.
-The court hid the ID cards of a number of people who facilitated the bombing.
-The FBI bribed a witness to testify on behalf of the prosecution.
-The FBI expert on the explosive device was allowed to produce false evidence.
-The Salem footage was never included, nor was the source of the rental accommodation financing.

The trial has shown how inadequate justice can be for Muslim terrorists. There was virtually no hard evidence against the four defendants – they did not have the motives or resources to carry out such a conspiracy – and, as Robert Precht documented, the system was rigged for fair trial.

Ignored prior knowledge. CIA sponsored terrorists. FBI lab technicians pressured. Evidence withheld. Pioneered scapegoats. Not further investigated evidence of backers. Unfair litigation. And media that play along.

From a conspiracy analyst’s point of view, it’s hard not to see the 1993 WTC bombing as a success for the government. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and the end of the Cold War, the military-industrial complex had to cultivate a new enemy to ensure its long-term funding. The “war on terror” with its amorphous, hard-to-find enemy would work well. And the icing on the cake? A plausible excuse for passing new anti-terror legislation to strengthen police powers and restrict civil liberties.

The first attack on the World Trade Center may well have sparked the second, and thus gave birth to the well-functioning false flag terrorism that continues to this day.