Talk:1993 World Trade Center bombing/Archive 1

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. Jeronimo


 * 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)

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: 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)

Another question about numerical values: explosives are said to have weighed 1500 lb, and also 600 kg. These numbers differ by more than 10%. The latter is also incorrectly converted to 1310 pounds (600 kg is more than 1320 pounds). Some cautionary words are in order, e.g. "estimates range around 1400 pounds" or "variously estimated between 1300 and 1500 pounds". Mdmi (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2009 (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)


 * 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)

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)


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

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.71.250 (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Have a look here http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1369 - List of Unindicted co conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.209.187 (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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

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


 * 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:


 * 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)

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)

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


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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


 * How about a minor terrorist act occurring here and there is very good for job security for an agency tasked with fighting it? As well as morally acceptable if they believed the bomb to be insufficient to cause serious damage? I don't know that this was the case or not, but an open mind is an objective mind. There is great difficulty in prosecution of these kinds of crimes, to the point where it becomes desirable to catch them in the act. Informants can't always safely keep their handlers apprised of unfolding events or may assume they are on top of it but aren't. At this point I give the FBI benefit of doubt. We don't know what went down but it's irresponsible to suggest those that want the truth to come out are conspiracy theorists. Batvette (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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: ):


 * 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:


 * [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm "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
 * [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm "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
 * "Who Bombed The World Trade Center? FBI Bomb Builders Exposed," Paul DeRienzo, Frank Morales and Chris Flash, The Shadow, October 1994/January 1995 Issue
 * WBAI Radio broadcast in the city of New York which aired part of a taped conversation between FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem and FBI Special Agent John Anticev, MP3: short clip, longer clip

209.208.77.182 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * Hey, this guy Yousef has some pretty great ideas.

The motive for the attack should be in the introduction. Its pretty important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.216.145 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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:, transcript: ). 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: [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm "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 [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm "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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.95.146 (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How many CIA agents decided to stay home on 911? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally a lack of evidence from objective, reliable sorces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.16.201 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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:, transcript: ). 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: [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm "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 [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm "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)

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)


 * 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)

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

Martin Kramer link spam
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 --70.48.241.41 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Link removed. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.209.187 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Long kiss goodnight
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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)

Moving the Discussion page here
This poor article has been moved so many times...

Now somebody did a copy-and-paste move of the article to this name, which is a name it used to have back in 2003. I'm now doing a copy-and-paste movement of the Discussion page. Hope it works OK, and I hope people leave the article at this name. --RenniePet (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Name Change issues
A couple of hours ago, I discovered that back on February 15, 2008 User:Noahcs had moved this article from World Trade Center bombing (1993) to its current name. But rather than doing a standard page move, Noahcs chose to ignore proper procedures and did a cut-and-paste job, thereby losing the edit history for the article. Right there in the "Move page" instructions, it says, "...but please do not just copy and paste the contents, as doing that destroys the edit history of the page." Although RenniePet took a stab at restoring the history, most of it is still missing.

I strongly object to the way this was handled. Regardless of which name one prefers for the article, this sort of thing is unacceptable. As far as I can see, the easiest way to restore the integrity of the edit history is to move all of the recent changes and edit history back to the previous page, which was blanked and turned into a redirect. (If there's a better way to accomplish this, please let me know.) We can then proceed to discuss which of the two names is preferable, and if we settle on this new name, it can be changed with a standard page move. Cgingold (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK by me. I agree that what User:Noahcs did was incorrect, but I was willing to accept it because I do think that this is the "correct" name for the article. --RenniePet (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good -- do you feel like you can deal with the task yourself, RenniePet, or should we ask for help from an admin? Cgingold (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to your comments Cgingold, I tried to move to page to 1993 world Trade Center bombing, but Wikipedia wouldn't let me due the page already having more than one edit. So I had to use the cut-and-paste technique. I really hope I didn't upset anybody.  Noah¢s   ( Talk )  21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well of course it wouldn't make the requested move -- which is precisely why it advises you to make a request for an administrator's assistance. It's all explained right there in the "Move page" instructions. I'm surprised that you didn't take heed of the warning NOT to copy and paste -- especially seeing as you're not a newbie by any stretch. Cgingold (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would really, really, really prefer not to have to do much work on this myself - I'm spending way too much time on Wikipedia already. And after reading User:Noahcs' saying that he had tried to do a rename and it didn't work, I definitely don't feel up to the task - I still consider myself to be something of a newbie despite one year's experience.

How important is it that the history is readily accessible? What has happened is documented, and a serious researcher would be able to find all of the old edits without too much trouble. In other words, if I was to make a decision, I'd say "let sleeping dogs lie", and just hope nobody else ever feels a compulsion to rename this article again. --RenniePet (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, I will ask an admin to help out on this. Cgingold (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Connection to Mujahideen and US training
This paragraph has to go for so many reasons:

1. It's irrelevant. The only statement which is about the 1993 bombing has no source.

2. It's POV.

3. It's mostly false. The Rahman assertion was specifically disproved by the 9/11 Commission.

4. It breaches WP:RS. Sources are World Policy Institute, unknown writer at Omsk University, etc.

Maybe the paragraph should be in an article on US foreign policy but has no place in this entry.

Hecht (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One can say the same about your promotion of the Mylroie conspiracy theory. If you have specific sources that you think are not RS then please indicate which and we can discuss removing those.  But please do not remove sourced content just because you personally believe it to be "mostly" false. csloat (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Following WP:NPOV, WP:RS and the rest doesn't mean I agree with Mylroie. BTW her belief that a MidEast dictator backed terrorism hardly qualifies as a "conspiracy theory."

I just named some of the non-RS sources. These allegations were totally discredited by the 9/11 Commission report and other sources, e.g. here: Box: The Case of the Blind Sheikh.

Hecht (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mylroie's belief (in the face of most evidence) that the Middle Eastern dictator in question conspired with specific terrorists to attack the WTC is the very exemplar of a conspiracy theory, but that's neither here nor there. If one source's allegation has been disputed by another source, feel free to quote the other source too.  But please do not remove sources which meet WP:RS unless they can be shown to be irrelevant.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Her theory expressly denies that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda to attack the WTC in 1993. Her theory is that Saddam did it using his own agents (KSM, Yousef) while trying to divert blame to Rahman and his al-Qaeda-linked Islamists. That is why she keeps saying (incorrectly) that Yousef isn't Basit and (correctly) that KSM wasn't yet in al-Qaeda. Subsequently, she argues, Saddam infiltrated al-Qaeda via KSM, hence the later attacks. So she denies there was any conspiracy.


 * I'll answer your other points below.


 * Hecht (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh sorry I missed this when I typed the below. Silly semantic game but I'll play along.  What you're telling me is that Laurie says that Saddam conspired (there's that pesky word again!) with members of al Qaeda (or soon-to-be-members of al Qaeda) rather than with al Qaeda itself, while conspiring to cover up the conspiracy and divert attention to someone else.  Then subsequently he conspired with KSM to infiltrate al qaeda (and somehow manipulate the al Qaeda leadership into believing he was one of them) and then KSM conspired with al Qaeda to commit the 9/11 attacks.  OK, fine, this is still a conspiracy theory even though it is a more convoluted one than it originally seems.  ("Conspiracy theory" doesn't automatically mean "false," of course, though this particular one strains credulity).
 * Just curious though I've read some of both her books on this topic (and I've read all of her book about Saddam with Judith Miller) -- how does she explain why KSM, a Kuwaiti Islamist jihadist who joined up with Qutb's organization at age 16 and never once lived in or even visited Iraq, has more loyalty to the secular socialist dictator Saddam Hussein -- generally loathed by jihadists in part for his bloody campaign against Islamists in Iraq -- than to the jihadists he fought alongside in Afghanistan? I'm sure I'm going to love the answer. csloat (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, in this interview, Mylroie herself refers to this as a "conspiracy." What was your point again? csloat (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We're even because I missed your reply here after you missed mine.

Leaving aside the conspiracy issue for a second, you're now getting close to LM's theory. She says Saddam wanted revenge for the Gulf war. He wanted to kill masses of Americans. He couldn't do that directly without provoking retaliation. He had to divert the blame, preferably to jihadists. And if this sounds ludicrous, it's undisputed that in 1998 Iraq gave its Czech consul $150,000 to recruit jihadists to blow up Radio Free Europe in the heart of Prague.

LM says KSM's network, Iraqi agents with fake jihadist identities, were sent to infiltrate real jihadist groups and kill 10,000s. First Yousef was to infiltrate Rahman's circle in NY and bomb the WTC, killing 250,000. When that and the Bojinka plan failed, KSM took the 9/11 plan to OBL and merged their operations in a covert Iraqi takeover of al-Qaeda. She implies that Saddam and Iraqi intelligence were evil geniuses who could manipulate all these terrorist schemes without being discovered. I don't believe it, nor did the 9/11 Commission, but she was right on one crucial point: OBL and al-Qaeda didn't plan the 1993 WTC attack and the Bojinka plot, and OBL and al-Qaeda didn't originate the 9/11 operation. And the 9/11 Commission confirmed this.

Why is this important? It means that without OBL and al-Qaeda, 9/11 would still have happened. That's the tacit but inescapable message of Section 5.1 of the 9/11 Commission report. That's what Bergen, Leiken and the other self-promoting al-Qaeda "experts" won't admit. That's why I think LM isn't a contemptible lunatic but a sort of brilliant alchemist.

The answer to your question is that LM thinks KSM and his whole "family" are Iraqi intelligence agents and their identities are fakes ("legends"). So the person now calling himself "KSM" was never in the Muslim Brotherhood and never fought alongside jihadists in Afghanistan, while "Ramzi Yousef" was never the student "Abdul Basit" in Swansea, England. I disagree, but you must admit this is hard to explain:

If the two [Yousef/Basit] are indeed the same man, then, over the course of three years he would have: (a) grown four inches (from five foot eight inches to six feet) in his 20s; (b) put on between 35 and 40 pounds; (c) developed a deformed eye; (d) developed smaller ears and a smaller mouth; (e) gone from being an innovative computer programmer to being computer challenged; (f) aged substantially more than three years in appearance; and (g) changed from being a quiet, smiling young man respectful to women to a rather different one (a sound file in Yousef's computer, for example, includes his voice saying "F***, f***, f***" and "Shut up, you bitch").[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/525559/posts]

On the other hand, as Bergen asks, is it plausible that the Bush Administration can't even carry out simple DNA tests on KSM, Yousef & Co. because of bureaucratic obstruction, as LM alleges? But then why don't they just announce the results and shut LM up for good?

In the interview LM is talking about criminal conspiracies among the terrorists. That's because the Rahman prosecution rested on conspiracy charges. It's central to her argument about 1993 that these charges against Rahman exaggerated his role and disguised Yousef's autonomy. The whole point of her books is that the 1993 investigation should not have been about criminal conspiracies but rather state-sponsored terrorism. Same with 9/11.

Hecht (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not going to sort through Mylroie's bizarre speculations in this amount of detail; more power to you if that's the sort of thing you're into. Her claims to know Saddam's intentions after the gulf war, etc. may be "brilliant alchemy" or "contemptible lunacy"; whichever you like, neither should be taken seriously on an encyclopedia, period.  As for the semantic dispute that started this, this "state sponsored terrorism" theory is in fact a conspiracy theory and Mylroie herself calls it that.  A conspiracy of Saddam and these two men who have no real ties to Iraq and but who she argues mostly through speculation must be Iraqi agents.  But please, be my guest, call it whatever you will if it makes you feel better - I am done arguing about this point. csloat (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (and just a random point of curiosity on my part, why did you add "f** f**" to the free republic quote in the passage above? seems like a weird thing to do. whatever.) csloat (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Very quickly: as I keep saying, it isn't LM's theory but the findings of the 9/11 Commission that "should be taken seriously on an encyclopedia."

"f*** f***" was in Woolsey's printed article but I didn't see it was censored in that link. Try or even  which lacks the ***.

Hecht (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, ok, let's take the findings of the 9/11 Commission seriously. The Commission found Mylroie's conspiracy theory completely unsupported, and found her own position on the issue beneath even comment. csloat (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission main argument against Laurie Mylroie was that she stated Ramzi Yousef wasn’t part of Al Qaeda. I find that laughable. should I post some more evidence showing their connections? [] --OxAO (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert of 4/1/08
This revert war concerns the discussion immediately above re the mujahideen and laurie mylroie. I will explain each of the points reverted below; please do not revert again without discussing each point:

(1) Hecht removed "citation needed" (e.g. ) notations from a number of claims without explanation. Are those claims sourced? If so, where?

(2) "Connection to Mujahideen and US Training" section -- Hecht deleted this entirely based on the claim that the 911 Commission disputes it. If the 911 commission disputes it, cite them and be done with it. But do not delete the material that is sourced to reliable sources such as William Hartung, John Cooley, Demokratizatsiya. I don't particularly like this paragraph or the way this stuff is explained, but it is reliably sourced and should not just be deleted. Let's make things better rather than just deleting info we are uncomfortable with.

(3) Mylroie -- Hecht deleted the fact that "Her research has been heavily criticized and terrorism experts consider her argument utterly baseless" and replaced it with the weasel word "highly controversial." Let's keep the fact in place -- there is no credentialed terrorism expert in the world who considers Mylroie's view credible, and it has been explicitly rejected after independent investigations by FBI, CIA, DIA, the Justice Department, and the 9/11 Commission.

(4) Hecht deletes the quotation from Robert Leiken that specifically refutes Mylroie's conspiracy theory. There is no explanation or justification for this deletion.

(5) Hecht adds two quotations praising Mylroie in terms that are quite empty. The first one is a blurb from the back of the book jacket. This is not a WP:RS and the comment does not add to the discussion in any way. If you really must, we could possibly include the sentence "Nevertheless, Richard Perle found Mylroie's book 'wholly convincing'" but I'm not sure what this tells us about the 1993 world trade center bombing. The second quote is even less relevant; it is from a book review of a different book. The quote says nothing about the WTC 93 bombing nor about Mylroie's conspiracy theory; all it says is that the author believes her book about Bush is a good explanation of the war on terror.

Again, please do not revert wholesale without dealing with each of these arguments; preferably, let's approach these issues a piece at a time and find some common ground where we can produce an article both of us (not to mention every other editor on this page) can be happy with. csloat (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) I removed "citation needed" from "the bombing shocked the American public" because it's pedantic. Of course a terrorist bombing in the heart of NY shocked the public. I don't insist on keeping the sentence but if we keep it let's not be silly!


 * My other rm was the description of KSM as an al-Qaeda member. That is false. KSM linked up with OBL and swore loyalty later on. This is all in the 9/11 Commission report. It is extremely important to get this right because it means that OBL didn't initiate the 1990s terror campaign. This fact gave Mylroie's theory its initial air of plausibility.


 * (2) Muhahideen paragraph has these statements:-


 * (a) "The perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing used a manual written by the CIA for the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives." No source given. Completely baseless.


 * (b) "Sheik Abdel Rahman was allowed to come to the U.S. to recruit Arab-Americans to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets." False: he came after the Soviet withdrawal. He was on a terrorism "watch list." He was admitted because bureaucrats messed up. See 9/11 Commission link above.


 * (c) "The early foundations of al-Qaida were built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the substantial U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country." Irrelevant and false. (i) The bombing was carried out by the KSM network which wasn't yet part of al-Qaeda. Again, see 9/11 Commission. (ii) The US never armed or assisted OBL or the elements that became al-Qaeda. Peter Bergen calls this myth "hogwash."


 * (d) "The role of the U.S. in arming, training, and supporting the radical Islamic Mujahideen of Afghanistan in the 1980s has been called the model for state-sponsored terrorism." Irrelevant and POV. (i) Neither KSM nor OBL nor Rahman were armed, trained or supported by the US. See Bergen, Coll, 9/11 Commission, etc. (ii) The Afghan mujahideen backed by the US didn't carry out the bombing. (iii) "the model for state-sponsored terrorism" is POV from dead link.


 * (e) "The attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks of 11 September all have been linked to individuals and groups that at one time were armed and trained by the United States and/or its allies." Irrelevant to this entry and false for reasons just given. Link is dead.


 * What we have here is a list of mostly irrelevant and/or false statements amounting to a POV critique of US foreign policy.


 * (3) You are mistaken. She has been supported by a former head of the CIA (James Woolsey), a former vice chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council (Herbert Meyer), a former Senate intelligence oversight staff member and co-author of War: Ends and Means (Angelo Codevilla), the NY FBI director who investigated the 1993 bombing (Jim Fox), the lead prosecutor in the Rahman trial (Andrew McCarthy) and so on.


 * The statement "terrorism experts consider her argument utterly baseless" is therefore false.


 * Of course one can make various ad hominem objections to those just listed, but you can do the same to Bergen (instant 9/11 media expert), Leiken (ex-Maoist Latin America/immigration analyst, recreated himself as MidEast terror expert) or anyone else.


 * (4) I deleted Leiken because whether true or false his statement is irrelevant to the 1993 WTC bombing. It belongs in the Mylroie entry.


 * (5) The Perle and Codevilla quotes are both endorsements of her theory, which is central to the books in question. Perle's quote is in the Mylroie entry and you never objected to it as non-RS before. Codevilla's review supported her theory at length.


 * I think my edits should be restored in full.


 * Hecht (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with just about everything here except your support of Mylroie; it doesn't seem to me that substituting one set of arguments from authority with another (in my opinion more dubious given that they were based on the buildup to the Iraq war) set of arguments from authority is a way to improve the article. It would be more instructive to include a brief synopsis of the evidence provided by Mylroie for the link and perhaps some perspective on why that evidence is rubbish. Graft | talk 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not persuaded by Mylroie's theory. Also I don't want this entry to push that theory. But if the entry gives a list of quotes from notable critics then I think it should include quotes from notable supporters for the sake of balance. Arguments from authority should be presented from both sides or not at all.
 * As luck would have it, Mylroie has an op-ed on the subject in today's New York Sun.
 * Hecht (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear you aren't persuaded by this stuff. Her NY Sun editorial shows that she is nothing if not persistent.  She manages to argue that the pentagon report came to the exact opposite conclusion that it did, and she manages to assert without evidence that she knows the "common purpose" of shadowy meetings between Iraqis and Islamists from the early 1990s.  She repeats a lot of long-discredited nonsense like that Yasin was some kind of Iraqi agent.  I wonder if she believed Iraq was "an outlaw regime, built on deeply ingrained habits of deceit, developed over decades" back in the late 1980s when she was advocating support for Saddam.  Anyway, it's neither here nor there -- all we need to do in this article is mention Mylroie's theory and mention the fact that it has been discredited by every investigative body to look into it and that it is not taken seriously by experts. csloat (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Hecht, so you removed "citation needed" tags in order to substantiate Mylroie's conspiracy theory. I think we can agree that is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia.  If you have a cite that says KSM is not an al-Qaeda member feel free to add it where it is relevant, but don't just claim it is true in order to support a theory that has been rejected wholesale by all experts.  That's really not the point of this page.
 * On the mujahideen stuff, I agree with deleting the comments that aren't sourced, but you are deleting the entire section, including the material that is clearly referenced. That is unacceptable.  I agree with the point that the US never armed OBL, but there is little question that the US support of the Afghan resistance indirectly helped the jihadists.  More to the point, the US strongly encouraged the Saudis to support the jihad, which they did enthusiastically.  This stuff is well documented and acknowledged by commentators like Bergen and Coll who do not accept the "US armed OBL" thesis.
 * Mylroie may have been supported by Woolsey at one point, but you're flat out wrong about the FBI director -- the FBI came to the opposite conclusion she did (as you well know). I don't know about Codevilla or Meyer but neither of them are experts on this issue at all.  Every serious credentialed expert on this topic thinks Mylroie is a crackpot.
 * The Leiken statement is in fact completely on point here; he reminds us that her allegations were "definitively refuted by the FBI," a fact that you are censoring for some reason. If you don't think this is relevant then let's remove Mylroie's conspiracy theory completely.
 * Perle's quote, as I said, adds nothing here -- it's empty praise. If you think we should include a statement that Perle said on Mylroie's book jacket that he found the theory "convincing" perhaps we can include that.
 * Codevilla's comment is about a different book entirely and has no place here at all.
 * That covers it. I'm not going to restore the mujahideen paragraph because I agree with some of your objections and I don't feel like rewriting it, but I do think it should be rewritten and included eventually since this was an important point that was raised in many reliable sources. csloat (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Above I expressly said I did not accept LM's theory (I also explained why no conspiracy was alleged).

I did not say, as you claim, that "KSM is not an al-Qaeda member." KSM is an al-Qaeda member. He joined after meeting OBL in 1996, according to the 9/11 Commission. That means he was not a member in 1993, as the 9/11 Commission also points out. So it's misleading to say in this entry: "They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed."

That the US backed the Afghan mujahideen is true but irrelevant to this entry. No-one involved in the 1993 bombing was ever a US-backed Afghan mujahid.

NY FBI Director Jim Fox did back LM's theory. You know this because a photocopy of his letter is posted on her site and you removed it from the LM entry. Perhaps you were momentarily distracted when you wrote your comment above?

You also accused me of "censoring for some reason" the FBI's rejection of LM's theory. Actually I left Bergen's statement of this point uncensored. I deleted Leiken because he isn't talking about the 1993 bombing, the subject of this entry.

Perle's verdict is neither more nor less authoritative and politically motivated than Leiken's. But unlike Leiken, Perle was talking about 1993.

Codevilla's review expressly endorses LM's theory about 1993:

''Who, then, was ultimately behind the attacks on the World Trade Center, in 1993 and 2001? That is the question Laurie Mylroie has done more than anyone else to advance. In a nutshell, the official U.S. intelligence line — the basis on which President Bush has been acting — is that Youssef and the key organizers of 9/11 all belong essentially to one family, who are ethnic Baluchis, born and raised in Kuwait, and working for al-Qaeda. In fact, however, their activities began long before their 1997 association with al-Qaeda could have brought them the financial and organizational tools; furthermore, the notion that a single family could be at the heart of a worldwide assault on America is inherently implausible. Mylroie also argues, persuasively, that there is much reason to believe that these persons are not who they claim to be at all.''

Hecht (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LM alleges that Saddam conspired with al Qaeda soon to be members of al-Qaeda (see above) to attack the WTC. That's a conspiracy theory, by definition, as I explained above.  I'm not sure why you're disputing that obvious point, since it's not relevant here.
 * If you didn't endorse the conspiracy theory, that's great, but you did say that you had deleted info about KSM because it helps bolster LM's conspiracy theory. Your words exactly: "It is extremely important to get this right because it means that OBL didn't initiate the 1990s terror campaign. This fact gave Mylroie's theory its initial air of plausibility."  It really isn't Wikipedia's purpose to explain what makes a fringe theory "plausible."  You also haven't provided any evidence for this point, but that's a separate issue.
 * Your point about the mujahideen ignores completely my argument. I never said any Afghan jihadists attacked the WTC.  You should re-read my argument.
 * A letter on Laurie Mylroie's personal website is not a WP:RS. What reliable sources have reported is that the FBI investigated Mylroie's claims and found them absurd.  The head of the FBI investigation into the attack told Peter Bergen "We looked at [Mylroie's theory] rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government."  You're the one who claimed Fox was the head of that investigation; my claim was based on the FBI conclusion, but apparently the head of the investigation was Neil Herman, not Jim Fox -- so it's my mistake, based on your mistake.  BTW I have no idea why this is relevant to anything; care to explain?
 * Leiken is in fact talking about the 1993 WTC bombing (along with LM's other nutty theories); his comment about FBI refers directly to it.
 * Perle's verdict is not explained; Leiken's is. Both are talking about 1993.
 * The Codevilla quote I deleted was talking about a different book; you're using a different quote now. The guy is nuts if he really believes what you quoted, but that's neither here nor there - the bottom line is that all experts on terrorism have concluded that Mylroie's fringe conspiracy theory is ludicrous.  Codevilla's claim that the official line on this (supported, I remind you, by extensive independent investigations of various organizations) is based on some sort of Kuwaiti Baluchi conspiracy is just ludicrous; certainly that's not what the 9/11 Commission concluded, nor Richard Clarke, nor the CIA, FBI, DIA, the State Dept, the Pentagon, or the freakin Mossad for that matter.  Mylroie is pretty much alone on this and if she has convinced some insincere ideologues who write for the Weekly Standard and the like, bully for her, but that's not the same as expert endorsement. csloat (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

LM is alleging that the 1993 bombers were Iraqi agents. Claiming that a state sent its agents to commit terrorist attacks is not a conspiracy theory. Iraq also sent agents to kill ex-President Bush and bomb Radio Free Europe in the Czech Republic. That's not a conspiracy.

I didn't say I "deleted info about KSM because it [the deletion - Hecht] helps bolster LM's conspiracy theory." I deleted it because it was an error and a serious one: the fact is that OBL didn't start the terror campaign. Hating LM doesn't justify keeping a serious error in this entry. And since LM understood this before anyone else you should be a little less contemptuous of her analysis.

"You also haven't provided any evidence for this point, but that's a separate issue." See 9/11 Commission report, Section 5.1: Terrorist Entrepreneurs. It describes KSM's role in Yousef's plots starting with the 1993 WTC bombing and his subsequent alliance with OBL. The endnotes (pp. 488-9) also say: "KSM apparently did not begin working with al Qaeda until after the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings" and "KSM notes that Yousef was not a member of al Qaeda and that Yousef never met Bin Ladin." Have you read the report?

Since Afghan mujahideen weren't involved in the 1993 attack, the disputed paragraph is irrelevant to this entry.

NY FBI Director Jim Fox oversaw the investigation by FBI Supervisory Special Agent Neil Herman. Fox was Herman's boss. Fox said publicly that most veteran investigators blamed Iraq. Herman later said that Iraq had been thoroughly investigated and no connections found. But like Bergen you present as fact that the FBI dismissed Iraq out of hand and ridiculed LM's theory. It's more complicated than that. See?

The Leiken quote doesn't specifically mention the subject of this entry.

The Codevilla quote you deleted was from the same book review I quoted above. Again, I assume you were momentarily distracted when you denied this.

The official position is indeed that the terror campaign is based on an "extended family of extremists": KSM, his nephew Ali Abdul Aziz Ali/Ammar al-Baluchi, another nephew Ramzi Yousef, and the latter's brothers Abdul Munim Yousef and Abdul Karim Yousef:

''U.S. authorities, still buoyed by the capture of al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheik Mohammed, said yesterday [March 2003 - Hecht] they are concerned that his nephews -- the brothers of imprisoned terrorist Ramzi Yousef -- may be positioned to take over planning of future terror attacks... The families of Mohammed and Yousef are from the Baluchistan border area of Pakistan. The men, both nearly 40, grew up in Kuwait. Two of Yousef's brothers, also described as being in their forties, have worked closely with Mohammed in handling al Qaeda communications, travel and financial transfers, sources said. They are identified as Abd al-Mun'im Yousef and Abd al Karim Yousef. Abd al Karim Yousef, who speaks English, attended North Carolina A&T University with Mohammed during the 1980s. A cousin, Ali Abd al-Aziz, whose age was put at about 25, is also part of the Mohammed clan's network, sources said.''

As you can see, it's not enough to copy an alphabet soup of agencies from Bergen's hit piece. Check what he says and you'll find that he's not as reliable as you think.

Hecht (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Please see the above section. This is clearly a conspiracy theory, and Laurie Mylroie herself calls it that three times in an interview. And, again, why is it relevant?


 * (2) I realize you claim this was an error. But you stated that your sole reason for correcting the error was to provide evidence for LM's conspiracy theory. That was your claim -- "it is extremely important to get this right because it means that OBL didn't initiate the 1990s terror campaign. This fact gave Mylroie's theory its initial air of plausibility." As I said, that's not appropriate.


 * (3) Yes I have read the 9/11 Report, thanks for asking. It also states that bin Laden met with KSM before the '98 bombings because of his nephew's (Yousef) reknown. That still does not make any of this relevant. I'm not arguing for changing that particular claim.


 * (4) You repeat your nonresponse on the Afghan muhjahideen issue. I'll be restoring the paragraph soon (actually preferably rewriting it) if you can't respond to the actual points I made above. I look forward to your response.


 * (5) OK Fox was Herman's boss; Herman actually led the investigation, and found no connections. It is not more complicated than that -- the official conclusion of the FBI investigation was that there was nothing of substance to Mylroie's crackpot theory. The fact that Fox, who played no actual role in the investigation that we know of, thought Mylroie was convincing is irrelevant.


 * (6) The reference to the FBI investigation in the Leiken quote is on point. Read the article. He presents a list of her ridiculous allegations. Among the long list is this item -- [Mylroie beleives that] "Ramzi Youssef and KSM, the planners of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and 9-11 were undercover Iraqi agents." He points out "They had long-standing and deeply rooted attachment to radical Islam, one of whose tenets was hostility to the secular Ba’athists regimes in Iraq and Syria, which had murdered many of the co-religionists." He lists the other conspiracy theories to show how nuts she really is. He concludes "Sadly, Laurie seems to have become something of a conspiracy theorist, clinging to her thesis that Saddam masterminded for more than a decade a vast terrorist conspiracy, notwithstanding all the evidence and expert opinion to the contrary."  And this: "Much of Laurie’s arguments rests on suppositions about Ramzi Yousef that virtually no one who has studied the matter accepts."  He even refutes her silly argument about terrorist kinship: "Laurie tells us that “no other major terrorist organization has a family at its core. This is without precedent, and it requires an explanation.” But the leading investigator of al Qaeda’s enlistment procedures, Marc Sageman, studied the biographies of 172 mujahideen in Understanding Terror Networks. In the case of one-seventh of his sample, kinship played a central role, with entire families dedicated to the jihad, KSM’s family being but one. As for Baluchistan, together with the neighboring Northwest Frontier Province, it is the area of Pakistan with the heaviest Islamist penetration as illustrated by the showing of Islamist parties from that region in Pakistan’s 2003 parliamentary elections. Islamism has a long history in Pakistan dating back beyond the writings of one of its most important modern founders, Maulana Mawdudi, the appearance of whose first book, Jihad in Islam, coincided with the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928. (Those interested can find more information on the history of Islamism in the third chapter of my study Bearers of Global Jihad? Immigration and National Security after 9/11 available at Nixoncenter.org.) "  He even points out that James Woolsey, who you hold up as one of the few who support Mylroie's nonsense, travelled on "an extraordinary trip to check out a key aspect of Mylroie's argument about Yousef" and came up empty. Should I go on?


 * (7) I deleted the Codevilla quote because he was expressly talking about a different book. I assume you were momentarily distracted once again when you continued to ignore this blindingly obvious fact.


 * (8) I've dealt with the familial ties point above. But more to the point, what brings these folks together is an ideology of jihad, not merely family ties.  What is bizarre is that you continue to support the ludicrous claim that KSM and Yousef, who were committed Islamist ideologues with no real ties to Iraq whatsoever, would somehow be more loyal to an anti-Islamist secular socialist dictator than to their fellow jihadists (or, for that matter, to their belief in the Qur'an).  It's bizarre.


 * (9) Bergen is far from the only expert who refutes Mylroie (or, for that matter, thinks she's a crackpot). There is Leiken of course, a neoconservative.  There is the other neocon Daniel Pipes, who has worked closely with her in the past and may be uniquely suited to comment on her dementia.  There is Rohan Gunaratna, Jason Burke, Marc Sageman, Daniel Benjamin, and Steve Simon.  These are just the names that come to the top of my head.  There is of course the 9/11 Commission Report, which you cite approvingly as an authority on the issue.  The Commission concluded that there was no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, including the 1993 bombing.


 * Mylroie testified to the Commission, you know. She stated her case clearly and presented her allegations of conspiracy.  Yet in 600 pages the Commission saw fit to mention her name not once in the final report.  Why?  Because they found her logic absurd.  Read Phil Shenon's book.  Judith Yaphe was "appalled" by her testimony and said "I think shes doing exactly what troubles me most about leaping to great conclusions that al-Qaeda was a front for Iraqi intelligence.  I'm sorry.  I need evidence."  Richard Ben-Veniste thought the Bush admin had "cynically tried to seize on her theories to justify the Iraq war."  Hell, Ben-Veniste got Mylroie to acknowledge in testimony that "95 percent" of Middle Eastern scholars did not accept her theories about this link!  So by Mylroie's own admission, the overwhelming majority - near unanimity - of Middle East experts consider her out to lunch.  According to Shenon, "Several of the commissioners thought that Mylroie came off as batty, if not actually disconnected from reality."


 * As you can see, it's not enough to copy an alphabet soup of conspiracy stories from Laurie Mylroie's book. Check what she says and you'll find she's not as reliable as you think. csloat (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) Which section? Which interview?

(2) Your misrepresentation of my motive borders on an accusation of bad faith. I've already said I disbelieve LM's theory. In the quoted passage I referred to its initial air of plausibility, implying its ultimate implausibility and falsity. My motive, clearly stated in the preceding sentence, was to correct a crucial error, whose importance I explained. Why are you giving credence to this blunder ("I realize you claim this was an error"), even after I quoted the 9/11 Commission?

(3) Actually KSM met OBL in 1996 according to the 9/11 Commission. Three years after the 1993 attack. Don't you see why it matters that KSM/Yousef not al-Qaeda started the terror campaign? Don't you see why it matters that they originated all these plots to kill Americans by the 10,000s?

(4) Not quite clear what response you mean. You agreed that Afghan mujahideen didn't commit the 1993 attack, but still you want a para on Afghan mujahideen. You say: "US support of the Afghan resistance indirectly helped the jihadists. More to the point, the US strongly encouraged the Saudis to support the jihad, which they did enthusiastically." What do you mean by "jihadists" - the perpetrators of the 1993 attack? How were these perpetrators helped by the US? Not at all, if, as you seem to accept, they weren't armed, trained or funded by the US. But if "jihadists" means non-perpetrators of the 1993 attack, what's the relevance to an entry on the 1993 attack?

(5) "Fox, who played no actual role in the investigation that we know of." You're claiming that the NY FBI Director played no role in the NY FBI investigation of the biggest terror attack in NY history to that date? Please show evidence. And please show evidence he was lying when he said most of the veteran investigators blamed Iraq.

(6) I read the Leiken/LM debate years ago. They debated the 1993 bombing at length. But not in the Leiken quote you're trying to restore here. If you want to include relevant Leiken quotes, I don't object.

But since you raise the subject, Leiken's claim that KSM and Ramzi Yousef had a "long-standing and deeply rooted attachment to radical Islam" is untrue. Neither KSM nor Yousef lived as pious Muslims. They both told their interrogators that their motive was hatred of Israel, not Islam. Yousef even claimed that he converted to Christianity in prison. Apostasy is punishable by death in radical Islam.

I agree with Leiken and the official US position on the Baluchistan family question. I'm glad that since your earlier message you've converted to my point of view! In that message you were scornful of Codevilla's factual statement that the official US position (which he rejects) blames the 1990s terror campaign on a Baluchistan family.

It's unfortunate that you mention Leiken on Woolsey and the fingerprints. In that debate he made a blunder which showed his misunderstanding of the whole issue. LM immediately picked him up on it. And you know the outcome of Woolsey's trip is disputed because we dealt with this over at the LM entry.

Why does Leiken make these silly blunders? Maybe because he's an ex-Maoist, turned Latin America analyst who switched sides on Nicaragua, turned immigration analyst, turned opportunistic post-9/11 MidEast terror "expert" who doesn't speak Arabic? Maybe because his main claim to fame since then has been whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood? Do you really think he's credible?

(7) Codevilla's book review expressly endorsed LM's theory. Above you denied this. Then you said I was quoting from a different book review. Why not admit error here so we can move on?

(8) I don't "continue to support" LM's Iraqi agents claim, I disbelieve it, as I've said over and over again and as you keep ignoring. But it's untrue that KSM and Yousef are "committed Islamist ideologues" who share "an ideology of jihad." See (6) above. And LM's claim is that because they're not Islamists they're likely to be Iraqi intelligence agents. You simply haven't understood her argument.

(9) Your main source above was clearly Bergen, you replicated his errors (KSM/Yousef as al-Qaeda in 1993, FBI consensus against Iraqi involvement, etc.) And for what it's worth, Leiken the ex-Maoist is now a conservative realist not a neocon. More to the point, if you look at the other named experts, they're just as opportunistic and unreliable as this pair, and certainly no better than LM. Try. Sageman is "a Harvard-trained medical doctor and Central Intelligence Agency officer turned forensic psychiatrist and noted al-Qaida researcher"!!! I won't even comment on Clinton staffer Benjamin, who like Bergen started out as an ordinary journalist. Do you really find the Bergens, Leikens, Gunaratnas, Burkes and Sagemans credible? Do you think any of them would be promoting themselves as al-Qaeda "experts" without those book contracts and speaking engagements? Please.

Your quotes on LM's testimony to the 9/11 Commission are most interesting. The thing is, I didn't rely on "conspiracy stories from Laurie Mylroie's book," I quoted the report of the 9/11 Commission!

Hecht (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me add a note of appreciation. You may have used Peter Bergen, Robert Leiken and other self-promoted "experts," but at least you haven't resorted to Michael Scheuer. Credit where it's due.

Hecht (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Only just noticed your reply in the section above, so now I understand your point (1). Will reply there in a while.

Hecht (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) I refer to this comment as you have seen. I don't think it's worth either of our time to continue that particular semantic debate but be my guest.
 * (2) Your accusation of misrepresentation crosses the border into bad faith. I'll accept your apology if you can agree not to go there again.
 * (3) I am dropping the KSM issue completely as I see no point in pursuing it. But just to be clear I didn't deny that KSM met OBL in 1996; that's exactly the meeting I was talking about.  Your distinction between KSM and OBL is accurate but immaterial; is there a specific edit you believe we are arguing about here?  I don't think there is.
 * (4) I realize you are not clear on this; I also don't find it worth arguing about now. The paragraph you deleted was poor and I won't reinstate it.  Eventually I or someone else will put in a paragraph on the well-reported (at least in alt media like the Village Voice) argument that the US had connections to the 1993 plot via connections that were made with the CIA in the 1980s.  Is that really so hard to understand?
 * (5) If you have specific information identifying Fox's role, let's see it. Otherwise drop it.  All we know is that Fox found Mylroie's book convincing but that the official FBI conclusion was that Mylroie was wrong.  Perhaps Fox made his comment before the investigation was over; I don't know.  It doesn't matter.  If all you have is a photocopied letter on Mylroie's own personal website, we can't use it.  I never said he was lying nor do I care if he was -- perhaps Mulroie made up the letter; perhaps he was confused; perhaps he was speaking about right after the attack; perhaps he had his head up his ass.  We have no evidence of what "most veteran investigators" think other than the official FBI conclusion.
 * (6) The quote is referring specifically to the FBI conclusion of the 93 bombing, but perhaps I'll include some of the other material from Leiken here as well if you think it is relevant.
 * (7) I never said KSM or RY "lived as pious Muslims." Many many extreme Islamists and terrorists do not.  What Leiken said is that they had attachments to radical Islam, which is quite true.  And, it's irrelevant if you disagree - you are welcome to believe whatever you wish.  But what goes in the article must be published in verifiable sources.
 * (8) There is no need to spout nonsense about me "converting to your point of view." I said things were more complicated than LM thinks and I continue to believe that.  This is not a debate club; it's an encyclopedia.
 * (9) I don't know that the outcome of the Woolsey trip is disputed. Please enlighten me.  I don't have much faith in Woolsey, who is a hack, but I'm happy to hear any evidence you have turned up that he managed to miss.
 * (10) Your ad hominems about Leiken are amusing but neither here nor there. I'm not defending him; I'm just pointing out that even a neocon like him can see that LM is not credible.
 * (11) If LM is saying that because KSM/RY are not Islamists they must be Iraqi agents, then she is even more nuts than I thought. That's a false dichotomy, of course.  But we also know well that they are Islamists so I don't think your point is accurate.
 * (12) If I haven't understood her argument perhaps it is because it is illogical?
 * (13) Bergen is not the only source, I named quite a list of them. Besides, Bergen's expertise on this topic is reknown, despite your assertion that he made some minor mistakes.  You're welcome to your opinion of him; he's far more qualified to discuss these matters than Mylroie.  Same with the others - the fact that you found some right wing editorials spewing ad hominems about Sageman or Gunaratna is amusing but irrelevant.  You also ignored Benjamin and Simon, whose credibility and expertise on this issue is unassailable, despite your smarmy dismissal of one of them.  And Burke for that matter.  All of these folks have written detailed and well-documented books on this phenomenon that are consistent with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of experts.  Sageman, Gunaratna, Benjamin, Simon (not to mention others like Cole and Johnson and Lang, for that matter) speak at international conferences on terrorism with other well known experts on Middle East issues.  You belittle their book contracts and speaking engagements, but it's their credibility that got them those things in the first place; what really is your point?  I'm not saying everything they say is golden, but every one of them is far more credible than Mylroie.  All you have on the other side is Mylroie herself, who admits that 95% of experts think she's a crank.  Another point you ignore, of course.
 * (14) You mention that you quote the 9/11 commission; that's great! In fact, they concluded that Mylroie is full of it.  That's all we need to be clear on here.  If we're in agreement on that point, why are we nitpicking about Bergen??  I'm sorry but you've really lost me.
 * (15) You mention Scheuer, yet another expert who thinks Mylroie is out to lunch -- yes he's a cranky bastard, but he's also far more credible than Ms. Mylroie. It was he who led the CIA's investigation into Saddam/AQ ties in 2003.  He had written a book earlier that claimed there were ties but then after digging through thousands of pages of classified documents at the request of the Bush Admin, found that there were no real ties there.  So you're right I didn't bother to mention him earlier, but he's yet another one.  I suppose you may just be baiting me so you can cite another article that calls Scheuer names.  It's getting old -- on the one had you have Mylroie by herself with a loony conspiracy theory based mostly on speculation and innuendo, and on the other hand you have a host of experts who disagree about most everything except for the fact that Mylroie is wrong.  Sorry, man, you can nitpick all you want about Gunaratna's speaking engagements or Bergen's book contracts, but you've got very little to stand on other than a discredited conspiracy theory that you yourself claim not to believe in.  Seriously, why are we arguing at all?? csloat (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(2) I said that your continued misrepresentation of my motives borders on accusing me of bad faith. You respond that my "accusation of misrepresentation crosses the border into bad faith" and demand an apology. Par for the course I'm afraid.

(4) I'm frankly amazed that you consider Village Voice a reliable source. And you still haven't explained what connections there were between the CIA and the 1993 plot. Now that really is a conspiracy theory.

(5) That you suspect LM of making up a letter from the former director of the New York FBI for her website shows how far you have to go to sustain your position. Of course there's not a scrap of evidence for your accusation (which could easily provoke a libel action against Wikipedia if she sees it - please remember WP:BLP).

(7) I've already shown how worthless Leiken's claims are. Please tell me how many genuine Islamists announce that they've converted to Christianity, punishable by death according to Islamism.

(8) You denied that the Baluchistan family claim was the official US position. I showed it was the official US position. You then quoted Leiken in support of this position and in opposition to LM. You changed your mind 100% in the course of a single message. Hardly a debating point.

(9) I don't need to "enlighten" you because you've already seen the contradictory evidence about the Yousef fingerprints from Newsweek and the Guardian on the LM entry. So you do "know that the outcome of the Woolsey trip is disputed."

(10) "even a neocon like him can see that LM is not credible." He's not a neocon, and he can't "see" what's credible or not because he doesn't know anything about the MidEast or even understand the issues he's debating - his blunder about the fingerprints being a case in point.

(11) We know they're not Islamists. Even they admit that. We also know they're not Iraqi agents as LM thinks. But I don't understand why previously you insisted with great vehemence that Islamists would not work for the secular Baath and now say there's no contradiction between being an Islamist and an Iraqi agent. Are you changing your mind again?

(13) Bergen's claim that Yousef is al-Qaeda, in direct opposition to KSM's testimony and the 9/11 Commission, is hardly a minor mistake. You know that the item on Gunaratna, who is himself right-wing, is not a "right-wing editorial." I did not ignore Benjamin and Burke. Go and check my paragraph and the links I gave. But you've now added Cole to your list - the guy who claimed that 9/11 was retaliation for events that took place afterwards! ("Bin Laden had wanted to move the operation up in response to Sharon's threatening visit to the Temple Mount, and again in response to the Israeli attack on the Jenin refugee camp")

(14) We're talking about Bergen because you don't seem to understand that he directly contradicted the 9/11 Commission while pretending that he was just echoing the consensus.

(15) You already know Mylroie was backed by the former head of the CIA, former director of the NY FBI, etc. Rightly or wrongly she wasn't "alone." Repeating it doesn't make it so.

I think we should now drop this because you're not proposing any edits as far as I can see so there's nothing to discuss.

Hecht (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (2) That's not an apology - try again. If you don't understand why one is warranted, please read this.  Thanks.


 * (4) The Village Voice is certainly a reliable source per Wikipedia standards; you should know that. If you are "frankly amazed," that's nice, but irrelevant.  Yes, it is a conspiracy theory, but it's a notable one.  (Just a quick addition here - I am frankly amazed that you would claim here that the Village Voice is not a reliable source, and yet here you would be searching for quotes from that same newspaper to add to Wikipedia.)


 * (5) I didn't say I suspected LM of anything. Please stop putting words in my mouth, it's unsettling.


 * (7) You have shown nothing of the sort. Leiken's claims against Mylroie are pretty solid here, frankly, and I'm no big fan of Leiken at all.


 * (8) I didn't "change my mind 100%". I said that LM was wrong about what the official US position was.  Then I quoted Leiken to show that the position LM was criticizing was not as unusual as she made it sound.  If you find that to be a change of mind, whatever; does it really matter?


 * (9) Please enlighten me as to what Woolsey specifically found on his trip. Or don't -- I really don't care at this point.


 * (10) Erm, you haven't shown anything about any "blunder," and, as I said, his arguments against LM are quite convincing. The fact that you are not convinced is interesting but irrelevant -- if you have something specific you'd like to add to the article based on this claim let's hear what it is.


 * (11) We know they are Islamists. Read their Wikipedia page entries.  As for your point about the "contradiction," you are again putting words in my mouth.  Let's review -- you said that LM said that if they weren't Islamists they must be Iraqi agents.  I said that was a false dichotomy.  I didn't say there was "no contradiction" between being one or the other.  What I said was they might be something else entirely, a possibility you are claiming LM is not capable of entertaining.


 * (13) Portraying Gunaratna as "right wing" is a bit silly; conservative, perhaps, but he's not right wing in U.S. terms at all. But that's neither here nor there - the editorial against him was not "right wing," you're right, but it was still ad hominem and irrelevant.  You know quite well that he is widely regarded as an expert on these matters and that his credentials on this issue in particular are impeccable.  Same with Benjamin and Burke.  As for Cole -- yes, he made a dumb mistake on his blog once, and the right wing critics raked him over the, erm, coals for it, and he apologized.  You think that somehow invalidates his Ph.D., his several peer-reviewed and highly recognized books on the modern Middle East, his years of scholarship and teaching in the area?  Come on.  If you write a blog as prolifically as he does I'm sure you'll make a mistake here and there too.


 * (14) Again, I think Bergen is well-known as an expert on these matters. He's one of the few journalists to actually interview bin Laden; he has been writing about him and about al Qaeda for longer than most Americans have even heard of him.  He has traveled extensively and done immense amounts of research.  You claim he contradicts something the 9/11 Commission said - so what?  If you're going to say that one small error invalidates everything he or Cole says, it's odd that you would defend Mylroie, whose errors are legion.


 * (15) I said Mylroie was alone among experts; the fact that two non-expert bureaucrats found her book convincing is irrelevant. What books have Woolsey and Fox written about terrorism?  The foreward to Rachel Ehrenfeld's book doesn't count, nor does a photocopied letter on a self-published website.  Mylroie herself admits that she is virtually alone on this one.  You're really grasping at straws to portray her as credible.


 * If you're not proposing any changes at this point, you're right, we should drop it. csloat (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Injured People
How many people were injured in the bombing? In the first section of the article, it states that 1,042 people were injured. In the "the attack" section, it states that 1,040 people were injured. Which is it?

Thanks! --Jomskylark (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It was actually from what I know 1,042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLAYA16 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

According to an official report by the US Fire Administration (w/ the Homeland Security logo on its cover), available at www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-076.pdf, it was indeed 1,042. I'm about to put that data and more into the main article, but have not even attempted to do a proper footnote. I *wish* there was a tutorial, because every time I try it, I do it wrong.

So, a shout out: WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE A REFERENCE ITEM from the data I've provided? Thanks!

Because the reference to "Reeve, 1999" is utterly inadequate. It doesn't even say if it was a broadcast, a book, or what! The facts may be right, but the sourcing is bogus.

GeorgeTSLC (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Mylroie's fantasies revisited
I deleted the reference to Saddam's alleged support of EIG. Hecht has been adding this all over the place, my explanation for removing it is on this talk page. I will add to that the fact that this article should not give Mylroie's conspiracy theory additional attention or try to argue her case. It is enough to point out that she made these claims, and that they have been refuted. Her recent article in the NY tabloid really shouldn't be mentioned at all here, though for now I've left in place her phenomenally illogical speculation that Saddam's motive when he had a secret meeting in the early 1990s was to plant a cover story that he knew would wind up in the Pentagon's hands ten years later when they got ahold of secret tapes of the meeting. I think that should be removed too, however; does anyone have any thoughts on this? csloat (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Saddam's support of Rahman's Islamic Group (also al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad) is in the Pentagon report, check the page references given. We have to include new info. disproving the Iraq link; since LM responded we should mention that as well. (BTW she didn't claim Saddam was trying to "plant a cover story that he knew would wind up in the Pentagon's hands ten years later." She argued that he and his aides were rehearsing their cover story to be fed to the Clinton Administration.) Yes there's too much on LM here, so let's start by getting rid of that irrelevant Leiken quote. Hecht (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) Why are you deleting leiken? We went through that a couple months ago and determined it belongs here, at least if we're mentioning Mylroie's bizarre theories at all.  (2) The Pentagon expresses no confidence that the single memo that addresses this issue is even Rahman's group for sure.  (3) We do not "have to include" this info; it has not been mentioned in any mainstream source other than Mylroie's tabloid oped in the NY Sun.  It's certainly not notable as an explanation of the 93 WTC attack, which this article purports to be about.  (4) Her argument does not become more credible even after you offer a generous interpretation of it that is not based in anything she actually wrote.  Her speculation that at a secret meeting these guys were rehearsing a cover story (in perfect performance apparently since they never slip up even though it's a private meeting, and they managed to fool even pentagon researchers who analyzed the tape ten years after) is not based in anything but her own assumptions, and it is just not notable for this page. csloat (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) I explained why. You yourself wanted to cut the stuff on Mylroie. Leiken quote isn't even relevant. (2) It's more than one memo. (3) We certainly must have this in the Iraq section of this entry -- it's central to the issue! You already know it was in the New York Sun news report. Also elsewhere. (4) Doesn't matter what we think about credibility. If her theory's notable for this page, so's the fact that she's sticking to it after this new evidence. Hecht (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (1)Leiken is relevant if we keep Mylroie; I am happy to have that stuff cut entirely. But keeping her and taking him out is deceptive and POV-pushing.
 * (2) Where is the other memo?! There is only one referred to in the report.
 * (3) If this particular memo is so central to the issue why is it the only place it is mentioned is a footnote to this Pentagon report and Wikipedia itself? The tabloid NY Sun opinion piece is not a "news report" and even it has basically buried the mention of this.  Where is the NYTimes article, or Washington Post?
 * (4) No; not everything she says is notable. Her theories were notable in 2002-3 when they influenced Cheney and others to believe her nonsense.  The fact that she is still spewing nonsense 5 years later when NOBODY is listening is not notable.  Wikipedia should not be the only place where her every comment is taken seriously. csloat (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet again: Leiken isn't relevant to this entry. He wasn't talking about 1993 in that quote. There's more than one document, check couple of pages and a couple of volumes later, as I've already told you. The Rahman link is mentioned in the Pentagon editors' study and in the documents, as I've already told you. I was talking about Lake's news report, not Mylroie's oped, as you already know. Mylroie's theory has to be properly explained in Mylroie's entry. Etc. I note your frequent insults of Mylroie and me, here and on other Talk pages: "spewing nonsense," "wild," "deceptive," "conspiracy nuts." WP:BLP, WP:AGF. Hecht (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Leiken is relevant as he shows how far gone Mylroie is with these conspiracy theories. There is only one document referring specifically to a group that appears to be EIG in the report -- what other document can you cite?  The other pages of the report seem to be sourced to the same document.  I know you were talking about Lake's piece; it is likewise in the tabloid (and Lake's biases on this issue, like Mylroie's, are well-known and predictable).  This is not Mylroie's entry.  I return to my main argument here -- why is this particular incident more important for mention than any other, when it is not mentioned anywhere in the mainstream media about this topic?  As for BLP, please.  It is no BLP violation to state that nearly every credible terrorism expert and middle east expert who has examined Mylroie's theories (including a few pundits who agree with her about many things) have found them to be completely absurd, and have gone as far as to call her a "crackpot," "conspiracy theorist," "loony," etc., in published sources.  And it is no BLP violation to state that her theories are nonsense.  I'll try to AGF with regard to you - I really did not mean to question your motives - but it seems odd to me that you are so insistent on adding to three different pages on Wikipedia information buried in a pentagon report worded in a way that appears to support the claim that Saddam funded and trained the people who hit the WTC in 1993.  It's especially odd given that you acknowledge that he did not. csloat (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

removed someone's own opinion
"Her research has been heavily criticized and terrorism experts consider her theory baseless. " is your own opinion. There are 'experts' btw who disagree with the 'experts' YOU refer to... It is not a fact. The people who are chosen as the experts here also have political issues that guide their opinion (in MY opinion). I would like to add that the WTC bombing #2 was on Sept. 11, 2001. This is exactly 10 years to the day from Iraq's defeat, and Bush's 9-11-1991 'victory speech' about Victory in Iraq, and the now infamous "New World Order" statement. So... is the FIRST WTC attack linked to the 2nd? I'd say the 2nd is definately related to Iraq, seeing the date that was chosen to attack us. ---Jf (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar fix
The sentence: "Conspirator Mahmud Abouhalima later that the original plan was to attack the United Nations headquarters earlier in the morning." needs a "said" thrown in there.

Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocks (talk • contribs) 11:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks
Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why nomention that the bomb was paid for by the FBI
and that the FBI informant supplied the bombers with large sums of FBI cash to fund their opeation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Center" or "Centre"?
Any references to World Trade Centre in this article should be changed to Center. Not only is World Trade Center  a proper name, in this case the correct name of the site of the 1993 explosion and the 9/11 attacks, but using the -re spelling is not fully respecting the victims and their loved ones. 207.210.129.61 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggesting that the UK English spelling of "centre" is "not fully respecting the victims and their loved ones" is not only ludicrous, it's actually disrespectful to the memory of the 1993 bombing, and equally as grammatically incorrect as the misspelling. Your point was well-taken that the US English spelling is "center." You should have stopped there. Dhvrm (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal responsibility
The second paragraph of the Legal responsibility section is argumentative. While it certainly seems intended to explain the logic behind New York's tort laws, it uses words and phrases -- such as "makes no sense", "very duty", "nonsensical", etc. -- to make its points. More neutral language should be used.Dhvrm (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[for the record, I agreed with IN SPIRIT what I deleted here, just not how it was worded]

Were 7 killed in the attack?
Perhaps from a legal standpoint, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is not retroactive, but if there exist laws stating that the 'murder' of fetuses, when incidental to the mother's death, constitutes a second homicide, does this place Monica Smith's unborn child as the 7th victim? NeutronTaste (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on the repair of the building/structural stuff???
I am surprised at the lacking of this article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's because during the renovation process is when they planted the bombs they used to incinerate the steel beams for the following 2001 attacks. They renovated BOTH buildings, despite only the one being damaged.

Why on earth is nothing mention about the repairs after the bombing? A can of paint surely didn't fix it. Patcat88 (talk)

If Laurie Mylroie's fantasies get revisited again...
Can we address the issue as Iraq's alleged involvement and not setting up a crank just to knock them down? I'm not rewriting it or wishing to rehash an old argument but the glaring problem seems to be attaching the issue solely to Laurie, and if we can completely discredit her then that dismisses Iraqi involvement. Can you similarly discredit James Woolsely? I'm guessing not. In any case this is obviously an issue magnified by people with political motivations who wish to cast aspersion on Saddam's terrorist activities as justification for the 2003 Iraq war, an effort which will forever have some undisputed facts BBC-Palestinian suicide bombers get Iraq fundsto trip over. Saddam was himself, a terrorist. USA Today marines discover smoking gunBatvette (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone please fix this section: U.S. Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) involvement
There is an obvious problem here. Maybe some of the interrupting text was supposed to be in a different section (such as security) and got placed here by accident. I'm new here though, so I thought I'd post here first before deleting anything. Infoinfoinfo123 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The electrical power cutoff...
article states:

"The bomb instantly cut off the World Trade Center's main electrical power line, knocking out the emergency lighting system."

My recollection, which I'll readily admit to not being able to document, is that the backup lighting was working but that the fire commissioner ordered those circuits shut down because of the danger of electrocuting the emergency responders in the flooded basements.

(The WTC, at that time, used a centralized emergency generator system to provide power to the backup lights. After the 1993 bombing, and the complete electrical shutdown.. they retrofitted with the standard battery backup lamps that are ubiquitous in public facilities in the US).

Anyone have any further info? I'll work on my end... Thanks

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/childers.htm
 * In 1993 World Trade Center bombing on 2011-05-25 06:07:05, 404 Not Found
 * In 1993 World Trade Center bombing on 2011-06-24 20:19:12, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069653/
 * In 1993 World Trade Center bombing on 2011-05-25 06:07:05, 404 NotFound
 * In 1993 World Trade Center bombing on 2011-06-24 20:19:16, 404 NotFound

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

confusing scentence
It might be worth changing this sentence to be a little easier to parse.

"Also as a result of the loss of Hogan most of New York City's radio and television stations lost their over-the-air broadcast signal for almost a week, with television stations only being able to broadcast via cable and satellite via a microwave hookup between the stations and three of the New York area's largest cable companies, Cablevision, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable."

206.248.176.62 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)