Jump to content

Talk:1993 World Trade Center bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.230.130.56 (talk) at 16:43, 10 February 2008 (→‎on purpose of the attacks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My note about the movie "long kiss goodnight" certainly seems relevant and it was taken out without even a note? This bombing as a false flag operation is central to the plot of the film and is used to validate the nature of the antagonists. Seems it is a direct result of this event and deserves a link? But ? what else to say "week-pedia" pun intended withe the proper pronoun-cia-tion?


An event in this article is a February 26 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

I would like to add to this existing piece that there is a far more obvious point that is NEVER raised. The WTC was a target not only because it was an economic symbol of the American Empire but because the CIA had its East-Coast HQ in once of the towers. Now, clearly the Sept 11th guys knew this and that is a primary reason for it being chosen as a target. Why did the CIA not do the decent thing back in 93 or 1994. They should have made a public statement saying that they were leaving the building for one of those low-rise green-park business estates in NJ or CT. But instead they insisted on staying in the WTC between the two attacks maintaining a civilian complex status as a part of the American imperial complex by the presence of the CIA in the building, in the eyes of the attackers. Clinton admin is responsible for not making such a decision and it was in not either using public shaming or legislation to get the airline industry to put International grade security on domestic flights. A report was made by civil servants working for the Clinton admin making it clear that there was a need for it. Per Howard Simon Marks hsm_melody@hotmail.com

How many CIA agents decided to stay home on 911?




Why is Documentation on the FBI's Involvement in the Bombing Being Deleted?

Obviously there are individuals who greatly dislike people having access to this documentation, i.e., the audio recording and transcript of a conversation between FBI Special Agent John Anticev and FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem, wherein Emad A. Salem admits to building the bomb which exploded in the World Trade Center with the supervision of the FBI and the District Attorney of the City of New York (MP3: [1][2], transcript: [3]). In the recording, FBI Special Agent John Anticev does not disagree with Emad A. Salem's account of the bombing.

Also being deleted is an external link to the *full text* of the two New York Times articles on the Emad A. Salem recordings: "Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast," Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times, October 28, 1993, Section A, Page 1, Column 4; and "Tapes in Bombing Plot Show Informer and F.B.I. at Odds," Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times, October 27, 1993, Section A, Page 1, Column 4.

Certainly the above-said documentation is quite relevant--if not *the most* relevant--to any telling of the 1993 WTC bombing which stakes any claim to giving an accurate account of how the 1993 WTC bombing occured. Of course, it's precisely because said documentation is so devastating to the U.S. government's image that certain individuals are repeatedly deleting it from the Wikipedia article on the WTC bombing.

Needless to say, such deletions are about as far removed from honest scholarly behavior as one can get. Instead, it's called bowdlerization and censorship: such actions of bowdlerization being used to expunge from the article facts which certain individuals find greatly upsetting and who thus take said actions to try to keep others from seeing this information. 209.208.77.208 05:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Involvement in the Bombing

The below is a transcript from part of one of the recordings Emad A. Salem made of a telephone conversation he had with one of his FBI handlers, FBI Special Agent John Anticev (MP3: [4][5]):

FBI Special Agent John Anticev: But, uh, basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary, that it's—you know. But you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. [Nancy Floyd is another FBI Special Agent who worked with Emad A. Salem in his informant capacity.]
FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem: Well, I have to tell her of course.
Anticev: Well then, if you have to, you have to.
Salem: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with a receipt and now it's questionable.
Anticev: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the ordinary.
Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case!
Anticev: Well.
Salem: And then he put his head in the sand and said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a bitch." [Deep breath.] Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.
Anticev: No, don't make any rash decisions. I'm just trying to be as honest with you as I can.
Salem: Of course, I appreciate that.
Anticev: And as far as the payments go, and everything like that, they're there. I guarantee you that they are there.

See:

209.208.77.182 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Like with the 2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan, why the year in the title? I believe there was only one WTC bombing, so the 1993 doesn't add anything, it's over specific, and less likely to be linked to. jheijmans

Moved. --mav 09:24 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

If you research all currently available information on the Attacks of 9/11, it is clear that the truth behind the destruction of the WTC is still in doubt. Therefor putting the year in the title of this bombing should be regarded as important, until it is certain that it was the only occurrance of the WTC being bombed. Please research the issues and come to your own informed conclusion about 9/11 before rebuking this idea. (haven't sussed out signatures yet, sorry!) -- Peter_84, 13:51, Feb 21, 2006

Yeah, there is a prominent theory that the WTC was rigged with explosives on 9/11. It's a rather batty theory, but it exists. Since that is another alleged "World Trade Center bombing", this article should either contain that information, or the article should be moved back and this should be a disambiguation page. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poison gas

I removed the poison-gas bit, which I couldn't find any confirmation for. Also, is there any real evidence that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with this bombing? As far as I know, the man was running around in Sudan growing his beard at the time. As far as I know, Khobar towers is the first incident that Osama is suspected of being directly involved in... anyone got a credible source for this? (Note: Colin Powell or Donald Rumsfeld's say-so is NOT a credible source) Graft 17:51 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, where are your sources about Salem? DanKeshet 17:54 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)
I used the NYT story by Ralph Blumenthal available here: [6] Graft

Convictions

It occurs to me that I am screwing up the convictions, but am having a hard time identifying who was actually convicted for what, when... if someone wants to help me sort this out, much appreciated. Graft

This article references the cyanide bit, but says it was only wishful thinking on Yousef's part, and there is no good evidence that any actual cyanide was used in the attack. Graft

That article also says that there's no good evidence that Usama bin Laden had anything to do with it. (Scroll down to the text near footnote 9) DanKeshet

Bin Laden

I don't recall ever seeing anything convincing that bin Laden was involved (see note by DK above), so i took it out. I think it would be much more appropriate to say "backed by the FBI", since at least we have references for that. Anyone agree? Graft

I disagree. We have references saying that certain elements within the FBI assisted in the planning of the bombing, but they don't say that it was official FBI policy; indeed, there was a lot of bickering about whether or not this gets reported to headquarters. Saying "backed by the FBI" is a bit simplistic. DanKeshet

Contained a velocity?

Most bombs contained a velocity of 3,000 feet per second, but Yousef's bomb had a number five times greater, which was 15,000 feet per second.
-- What does that mean? Velocity is a property, not a substance. Someone who understands this, please write it in more correct English. --Zero 08:58, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not enough funds?

Where comes this junk about Yousef "not having enough funds"? At another point in the article it says it cost them $300 to put together the bomb. One can easily make this sum of money in a week doing a variety of things, if so inclined. I find it hard to believe, frankly... is there some reference for it? It's repeated several times.... Graft 22:45, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Further passing mention of US-Israel ties.) Or if the FBI was involved, why?

Supposedly it was to be a sting operation to catch the bad guys red handed, even though several of the plotters were already known terrorists. Why now has Emad Salem been removed from the article?
I second the request for some explanation of (or at least educated speculation about) the bombers' motives. Probably not a simple thing to explain, especially in a NPOV way, but there should be SOMETHING. --IQpierce 15:28 CST, 9th Jan 2006

The motivation of the terrorists, as explained in the 9/11 Commission Report, was to cause one tower to fall on the other, thereby punishing the U.S. for occupying Muslim land and supporting Israel. The FBI found out about the plan, and had Salem as an informant/FBI cooperator on the inside. By "the original plan", Salem meant that the FBI's plan was for Salem to replace the explosives in the bomb with a harmless powder that would not explode, thereby preventing the explosion. According to Salem, the FBI changed their minds about this. Is he lying? Who knows, but the FBI hasn't confirmed or denied it. Either the FBI was unable to prevent the bombing for an unknown reason, and Salem lied about it under oath, or else the FBI knowingly let the explosion happen when they could have prevented it. That would be an explosive charge (sorry about the pun), and since there's no evidence except Salem's word, news sources are reluctant to speculate about it. Anyway, the on-line 9/11 report (PDF) is a good place to find a summary and motivations - and it's in the public domain too. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation of guys like Yousef is not hard to figure out. The US has been supporting despots, overthrowing governments, bombing civilians, and generally wreaking havok in the Middle East for decades - not to mention supporting Israel. Combine that with religious fundamentalism and the motivation becomes clear. What I'm interested in is some speculation on the FBI's motive.

Why are people so stupid? CJK 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium Cyanide

The reference to Sodium Cyanide in the bomb should be removed unless anyone knows research done later that suggests John Parachini (of RAND), who has shown this to be a mistake originating from comments made by the trial judge, was himself mistaken. I follow issues pertaining to non-state group use of CBRN weapons closely for professional reasons and as far as I know, no one has suggested that Mr. Parachini's explanation for the cyanide myth is incorrect. The reference for the work is Parachini, John (2000) "The World Trade Center Bombers (1993)" in Tucker, J. Toxic Terror Monterey: The MIT Press (see http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=3602) Unless anyone has a more credible recent source on the matter, I'll remove the reference or perhaps better - expand it explaining it to be a myth and how it originated. --Finnishing 08:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expand it a bit. Graft 01:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Trial(s?)

This article is quite skimpy considering its significance as the only foreign terrorist attack on US soil prior to 911. Specifically I'd like to know more about the trial of Yousef and the Blind Sheikh, especially now since I understand the prosecutor was none other than Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Something's not right there. Anybody have leads?

Have a look here http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1369 - List of Unindicted co conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Where is Osama bin Laden?

Wasn't he supposed to have been a suspect, or linked somehow to this? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. He had nothing to do with it at all. Graft 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not directly linked. He was supposedly a financier of Operation Bojinka, which involved Yousef and the Blind Sheikh. It's hard to say, especially since nearly all information about these guys comes from big brother.
Bojinka was two years after this. Still doesn't make him linked in any meaningful way to this bombing. Graft 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really lame FBI conspiracy theory

OK, does this lame unsourced conspiracy theory really have to take up this much space in reference to the accusation that the FBI collaborated with the terrorists? Is there any actual evidence beyond this one supposed informant? CJK 22:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI has said he's an informant. He testified as an informant at the trial. It was mostly his testimony that led to the convictions of the participants. Please don't remove text from Wikipedia without good reason. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All true. But where is the proof of this lame conspiracy theory that the FBI told him that they should make a real bomb? CJK 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you already understood what I meant, but misrepresented it on purpose. CJK 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, maybe this clears things up [7]. CJK 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in misrepresenting you. I'm not sure why you refer to this as a lame conspiracy theory. The FBI fully admits that Emad Salem was working with the FBI to get information about the bombing before it happened. This isn't a theory or an opinon - I don't know of any source (including the FBI) that claims the FBI didn't know about the bombing beforehand. Emad Salem produced hours of audiotape between him and FBI officials discussion the plan before it happened. FBI foreknowlege is well established and pretty much universally accepted. Here are some sources: [8][9][10]
Of course that doesn't mean the FBI wanted the bombing to happen. They may have wanted to intercept the bombing before it happened, but were too slow. Emad testified that the FBI first instructed him to replace the explosives with a harmless powder, but then changed their mind and told him not to. He said the audiotapes he made prove that. These tapes are in the possession of the FBI now, and Salem is in the witness protection program, so there's no way to tell for sure. But the FBI has never contradicted Salem's account of this.
So maybe the FBI wanted the bomb to go off. Or maybe they decided that replacing the powder was too risky, and called it off for that reason. Or maybe they were just generally inept, with different FBI people telling Salem different things. Or maybe Salem, the FBI's star witness, was lying about the FBI ordering him not to replace the explosives. We don't know, and the article shouldn't say one way or the other. But it's just incorrect to say that the FBI didn't know about the bombing plot ahead of time, and its irresponsible to continue to remove information you don't like. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the guy ADMITTED HIMSELF that he was lying as shown in the link above. And again, WHERE is the proof that the guy was told by the FBI to replace the powder with a real bomb? WHERE??? CJK 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are sadly misinformed if you believe that cooperative research = "universally accepted". CJK 22:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't "admit" he was lying. I have the entire article, not just the summary, and he admits that he "threatened" the FBI. (The word "falsely" is in the summary, but not in the actual article. There's no indication in the article that his claims were false.) In the article, he told them he would reveal their role in the bombing if they didn't pay him a million dollars. They still used him as their star witness. He didn't reveal anything further about the FBI's alleged role. And he was placed in the witness-protection program. There is no record of whether they paid him any money.
The links I gave above are hosted by Cooperative Research, but they don't come from Cooperative Research. The text is from the New York Times, the Independent, and the official Senate testimony.
Please explain why you continue to remove information about Emad Salem, and refer to the FBI foreknowlege as "alleged" foreknowlege. Can you name a single source that alleges the FBI didn't know about the attack beforehand? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest keeping the old version that includes the greater information about Salem, though I'd tweak the statement "wished to complain" to sound a little less posh. I can also understand 'concern' about listing Alex Jones as quite so authoritative a source. So the these tapes include the FBI ordering Salem to "cook the bomb." would probably count a bit more towards "conspiracy" simply based on Jones' past theories. The difference between "Alleged" and "FBI Involvement" as the title of the section is a grey area, though I'd probably prefer to border on the side of safety (alleged) simply due to the paranoia I've learned about libel laws ;) But "retracted this statement" seems to be an oversimplication of the article if, as Quadell says, the full article doesn't really say that. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 23:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'll take your word for it and say that he did not admit he was lying, even though the article summary is actually the first 50 words of the article. But neither you nor I actually know whether or not the man was telling the truth, hence "alleged" foreknowledge. And while I cannot name any more sources, I will say that the only people making this accusation currently is cooperative research and their leftist "anti-corporate" buddies. And don't restore the part where it says "...the FBI decided to build a real bomb instead" because that's an obvious distortion of events. CJK 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But really, does anyone here actually believe the FBI would just sit back and watch the World Trade Center getting blown up--for no reason? Or is there some insane conspiracy that I don't no about? CJK 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I agree with all your changes to the current version - except for the word "alleged", but that's not a particularly big deal. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment here, but I see I'm a day late and a dollar short. :-) My only thought now is that it'd be good if some of the sources listed here could be in the article instead, so that people can read more if they want to, and I suppose it would also make sense to be more explicit, rather than saying the FBI chose to use him for other purposes, which sounds a bit cryptic. The New York Times could be quoted, for example, so that any claims are attributed. But if everyone has agreed on this version, then maybe it's better left as it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly believe the FBI would just sit back and watch the WTC getting blown up. Furthermore, there's substantial corroboration from Salem, the FBI has not contradicted his account, and there's circumstantial evidence such as the speed with which arrests happened. Incredulity that your government could do such things is not a basis for ignoring the available evidence, or labeling it a "really lame conspiracy theory". That, frankly, betrays an ignorance of what the Bureau has proven itself capable of in the past. Graft 04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why, Graft, would the FBI do such a thing? Oh yeah, I forgot. It was to steal oil from Iraq. Sorry.

Or, perhaps more plausibly, so they would have a strong case against the Blind Sheik and could put him in jail for a long time. As they did. Graft 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, they both sound really lame. CJK 18:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for the Attack

One obvious omission from this article is Yousef's motivation for the attack. I have quoted from Steve Coll's Ghost Wars. The ediction is: Ghost Wars, Steve Coll, Penguin Books, London 2004. The quotes (within inverted commas are from Yousef's own letters) are from p 248 of this edition. The reference from the quotes are given as follows: 'A photocopy of the letter (i.e. written by Yousef) was produced at his trial.'

Feel free to tinker around with this as you want, but I think that there should still be a section about Yousef's motives. 86.0.200.195 11:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please tell me why this section was removed?

'According to the journalist Steve Coll in his book 'Ghost Wars' [1], Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to the 'Liberation Army, Fifth Batallion'. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference 'with any of the Middle East countries (sic) interior affairs'. He stated that the attack on the World Trade Centre would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Centre bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because 'the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one'. ' 130.209.6.40 11:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this guy Yousef has some pretty great ideas.

Preemtive Sprotect

I realise we aren't supposed to preemtively sprotect things, but we got an anonymous tip about this forum posting. -- Zanimum 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=3788.topic

Sounds very reasonable. Thanks for being proactive here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
forgive me if my editing skills leave much to be desired as this is my first comment on wikipedia, and i registered specifically to comment on the pre-emtive sprotect based on a anonymous tip about a thread on a forum discussing the reverts to this article. I love wikipedia but find it extremely disturbing that a thread discussing a article on wikipedia would be considered a good reason to pre-emptively sprotect this article. This would seem to invite people to start a discussion of a wikipedia article with the sole purpose of causing a discussion to be locked, and i am sure you can see where that would lead. Due to the absence of a reason being given why the discussion of this wikipedia article in another place is cause to sprotect a page, the absence of any evidence that this particular discussion has had any effect on wikipedia or the article in question this does not seem reasonable to me. As a user of the forum referenced above i also resent the implication of impropriety. Hmmhmm 10:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You two "realise we aren't supposed to preemtively sprotect things" but yet you do it anyway?
Let me ask you two: why are certain people repeatedly deleting documentation on the FBI's involvement in the World Trade Center bombing?
Obviously there are individuals who greatly dislike people having access to this documentation, i.e., the audio recording and transcript of a conversation between FBI Special Agent John Anticev and FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem, wherein Emad A. Salem admits to building the bomb which exploded in the World Trade Center with the supervision of the FBI and the District Attorney of the City of New York (MP3: [11][12], transcript: [13]). In the recording, FBI Special Agent John Anticev does not disagree with Emad A. Salem's account of the bombing.
Also being deleted is an external link to the *full text* of the two New York Times articles on the Emad A. Salem recordings: "Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast," Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times, October 28, 1993, Section A, Page 1, Column 4; and "Tapes in Bombing Plot Show Informer and F.B.I. at Odds," Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times, October 27, 1993, Section A, Page 1, Column 4.
Certainly the above-said documentation is quite relevant--if not *the most* relevant--to any telling of the 1993 WTC bombing which stakes any claim to giving an accurate account of how the 1993 WTC bombing occured. Of course, it's precisely because said documentation is so devastating to the U.S. government's image that certain individuals are repeatedly deleting it from the Wikipedia article on the WTC bombing.
Needless to say, such deletions are about as far removed from honest scholarly behavior as one can get. Instead, it's called bowdlerization and censorship: such actions of bowdlerization being used to expunge from the article facts which certain individuals find greatly upsetting and who thus take said actions to try to keep others from seeing this information. 209.208.77.154 17:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute...links to the New York Times were deleted? Why?

I'd like to repeat that question -- why was a NYT article deleted? I see that Aude is also an editor here, and I hope that Aude has considered the points I made in the OKC bombing discussion regarding mainstream news reports hosted on independent servers. Referencing the article is great, but if the article itself is available to be read online, it should be OK to link it here, regardless of what server it's being hosted on or copied to --Wigglestrue 09:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even though it's old news now, I'm struck by the fact that someone had violated the guidelines which expressly forbid pre-emptive sprotects. --Wigglestrue 09:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world would people want such sadness in a world supposed to be brought up in such love and kindness? =(

This article, as is the case with over 30 others, has had an external link added to an essay of Martin Kramer. It has been determined that these additions are link spam. When this article is unprotected could this link be removed. Full discussion of this instance of POV and self-promoting link spam vandalism can be found here Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia.3F --70.48.241.41 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for the attack

Hi Could I please get a reason why the motives for the attack were cut? If i don't get one I will reinstate this passage (above).130.209.6.40 15:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have reinstated the cut passage 'reasons for the attack'. If anyone has any problems with that, could they please post on this page. Thank you. 86.0.200.195 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a copy of the October 1993 New York Times front page story: [14] --Striver 00:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FORMER AGENT KELVIN SMITH PLEADS GUILTY

I'd like to know more on Kelvin Smith. He lives less than 10 miles from me and did prison time for his involvement but was later released. His son is Musa Smith, running back for the Baltimore Ravens. Kelvin was questioned 8 days before the bombing and then used his undercover FWS phones to alert the "trainees". Kelvin is also named here http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1369 - List of Unindicted co conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

http://www.fwoa.org/news/fwoanws15a.html

FORMER AGENT KELVIN SMITH PLEADS GUILTY

For more than five years, we in Service law enforcement, especially in Region 5, and particularly in Pennsylvania, have lived and worked in the mockingshadow of one of our own gone very bad.


KELVIN SMITH, a former Special Agent with the Service, has entered a conditional guilty plea to four felony counts explained below in the U.S. Attorney's Press Release. We who worked with KELVIN (on that rare occasion when he did) are not surprised by this outcome, only by the fact that it has taken so long for it to happen.

A Harrisburg Patriot News article stated that the judge had noted SMITH's failure to disclose outside sources of income to either the IRS or the Fish and Wildlife Service and had abused his use of government owned vehicles and equipment. ``Attempting to resolve the matter, authorities gave SMITH a chance to plead guilty to either ethics violations or tax evasion, instead of pursuing the more serious charges now pending--- an offer SMITH refused, VANASKIE wrote.

In his second interview by the FBI, SMITH was asked to assist in the investigation because he was a law enforcement officer. SMITH refused, saying he was a Muslim first.

Under sentencing guidelines, SMITH could be sentenced to less than two years in jail at his hearing scheduled for January 18th, pending the appeal.


PRESS RELEASE

September 30, 1998

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the United States Attorney

Middle District of Pennsylvania


DAVID M. BARASCH, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, announced that a local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Officer entered a conditional plea of guilt Tuesday afternoon to charges he lied about training he provided terrorists plotting to bomb New York City area landmarks and to concealing their semiautomatic rifles in order to avoid their seizure by the FBI.

On February 26, 1996, KELVIN E. SMITH (All emphasis in the original), age 44, #2, Cold Storage Road, New Bloomfield, PA , was named in a four­count indictment returned by a Middle District of Pennsylvania grand jury.The first three counts charged SMITH with making FALSE STATEMENTS, 18 U.S.C. 1001. A fourth count charged SMITH with DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF PROPERTY TO AVOID SEIZURE, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2232(a). The False Statement Counts alleged SMITH lied to the FBI in February, March and June of 1993, about the nature and extent of paramilitary training SMITH provided a group of individuals then under FBI investigation for suspected terrorist activities. The counts alleged that SMITH, who was a federally licensed firearms dealer, concealed the fact he had purchased semiautomatic assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns and ammunition for their use at SMITH's Perry County, PA, residence in early 1993.

Six members of the group trained by SMITH were Islamic political extremists who were indicted by the Southern District of New York in 1993 and subsequently convicted of engaging in a seditious conspiracy to commit acts of urban terrorism, including the assassination of President Mubarak of Egypt, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Lincoln Tunnel,the Holland Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, and the United Nations Building in Manhattan.Three other trainees were convicted on other charges.

During the change of plea hearing before the HONORABLE THOMAS I. VANASKIE on Tuesday afternoon in Scranton, SMITH admitted that on four weekends between January 8 and February 7, 1993, he gave the trainees extensive firearms and paramilitary style training at his remote, 25­acre Perry County residence. The training included the firing of semi-automatic assault rifles, commando style shooting exercises, intense physical fitness training, hand­to­hand combat techniques, martial arts instruction, pepper mace training, and mock nighttime assaults on a nearby electric power substation. SMITH purchased a MAK­90 semiautomatic assault rifle, 3 SKS semi-automatic assault rifles, two .45 caliber semi-automatic handguns, more than 2,000 rounds of ammunition, and $1,900 worth of repelling equipment for the trainee's use with cash supplied by the trainees.

During one of the mock assaults, SMITH was approached by a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper at the electric substation and questioned regarding his activities. SMITH satisfied the trooper by identifying himself as a Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Officer and by claiming to be watching for deer poachers. After the trooper departed, SMITH used his undercover FWS van to transport the trainees back to his residence.

After SMITH was approached by the FBI on February 18, 1993, and his cooperation was solicited, SMITH used his undercover FWS telephone to alert the trainees they were under FBI scrutiny. After the World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993, the FBI again approached SMITH on March 17, 1993, explaining they suspected some of the trainees may have had a role in the bombing. SMITH again lied, telling the agents he gave the trainees basic, ``Boy Scout type training. Thereafter, SMITH delivered repelling equipment he had purchased for the trainees under the name of the FWS and with a substantial government discount, to one of their leaders in New York City.

On June 24, 1993, the FBI arrested several trainees as they mixed explosives in a Queens ``Safehouse. Around the same time, the FBI developed information that the trainees had transported their own semi­ automatic assault rifles to SMITH's residence and that SMITH had disposed of the rifles in order to avoid their seizure by the FBI. On June 26, 1993, SMITH was reinterviewed by the FBI and he denied the allegations. A subsequent search of his property was fruitless.

However, during the guilty plea hearing on Tuesday, SMITH admitted that the trainees had, if fact, brought 3­4 SKS assault rifles to his home in early February of1993 and that following his initial interview with the FBI, he disposed of them by throwing them off the Commodore Perry Bridge into the Delaware River near Chester, PA. An extensive search of the river in October of 1994 by a team of FBI divers using sophisticated underwater detection equipment failed to produce the weapons.

Since his indictment, SMITH has been on unpaid, administrative leave from his job as a Special Agent with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years incarceration and a $250,000 fine. During the hearing the government told JUDGE VANASKIE there was no evidence SMITH was aware the trainees planned to blow up New York City landmarks or assassinate President Mubarak. According to SMITH, the trainees told him they wanted the paramilitary training so they could fight as mercenaries in Bosnia.

SMITH pleaded guilty to his indictment on the condition he be permitted to appeal JUDGE VANASKIE's September 18, 1998, Opinion and Order precluding him from presenting a ``lesser harms defense. The proposed defense was based on SMITH's claim he committed the crimes in order to avoid physical harm from the trainees. In precluding the defense, JUDGE VANASKIE found SMITH failed to present prima facie evidence he was aware of any specific threat and he had no viable legal alternatives. Trial was scheduled to begin in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg on October 5, 1998. The case was investigated by the Harrisburg and Manhattan Offices of the FBI with assistance of the Department of the Interior's Inspector General's Office. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney KIM DOUGLAS DANIEL. Submitted by Dick Hart, Mercer, PA.

More pictures

This article definitely needs more pictures that show the effect it had on the public, like the crowded evacuation procedure, the wounded individuals, and anything else that depicts a broader view of the impact the explosion(s?) had.--PoidLover 19:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on purpose of the attacks

Hello! My name is Carlo Marino Buttazzo carlomarinobuttazzo. I have the duty for the history to say that nine months before I informed the rabino of Bologna that would have succeeded an attack to New York and Florence, and the day after I have spoken also with the Italian Police, in an office with gi high degrees of the police headquarters of Lecce, time after also with a magistrate, In Italy we know that the attack plows directed sinagoga the Brett Salomon and that because of the vigilance the attack has been chosen the alternative of the two towers, and that FBI has not only stopped in order to see them what would have made, then perhaps losing of the traces or not imagining an attack with the explosive. I have attended the university of Siena is my university professor of the art history called like Quatrochi the contractor Italian killed in Iraq, and siccome creed that is an aesthetic valence in its dead men, I seriously mean aesthetic of the message task in the jealousy of sure politicians and cattolic also, in all these years not to alive fact nobody, indeed after that is shrewed that I was continuing to work because I knew that it was not ended and that very three the two years before I had understood that they would have made attempted of twin towers , cosi little before succeeded to only make a small participation aesthetic, atraverso the images of the local television that they resumed a fatiscente shed of common of Sansepolcro the lines remembered the lines of the two Towers here.--http://buttazzocarlomarino.blogspot.com/ Wiki-Italy charlymingus@tim.it carlomarinobuttazzo 213.230.129.24 08:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the injuries

The article says 1,042 people were injured. I would like to know more about the nature of the injuries. E.g., were they mostly minor? Were they mostly smoke inhalation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.226.145 (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a ready reference for this, but in the "9/11 Commission Report" it says something about most of the injuries in the 1993 bombing being suffered during the evacuation of the building (or buildings, can't remember if one or both were evacuated). There was power failure and dark stairways and crowding (but no panic, if I remember right) and in particular problems with evacuating disabled and obese people. --RenniePet 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing&oldid=190408898"