CIA trained and funded 1993 wtc bombers

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 05:15 PM

From the terror timeline, citing mainstream sources

Quote:

The Boston Herald reports that an internal CIA report has concluded that the agency is “partially culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (see February 26, 1993) because it helped train and support some of the bombers. One source with knowledge of the report says, “It was determined that a significant amount of blowback appeared to have occurred.” A US intelligence source claims the CIA gave at least $1 billion to forces in Afghanistan connected to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. More than a half-dozen of the WTC bombers belonged to this faction, and some of the CIA money paid for their training. The source says, “By giving these people the funding that we did, a situation was created in which it could be safely argued that we bombed the World Trade Center.” Those connected to the bombing who went to Afghanistan include Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, Clement Rodney Hampton-el, Siddig Siddig Ali, Ahmed Ajaj, and Mahmud Abouhalima. [Boston Herald, 1/24/1994] Additionally, Ramzi Yousef trained in Afghanistan near the end of the Afghan war, and there are claims he was recruited by the CIA (see Late 1980s). “Intelligence sources say the CIA used the al-Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn—founded to support the Afghani rebels fighting Soviet occupation—to funnel aid to Hekmatyar, setting the stage for terrorists here to acquire the money, guns and training needed to later attack the Trade Center. CIA support also made it easier for alleged terrorist leaders to enter the country.” [Boston Herald, 1/24/1994]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...partlyculpable

Amazing how they happen to have CIA links just like the ISI links to Atta. This was an inside job.

T.A.M. · 9th August 2007, 05:19 PM

I cannot see your post, and that is fine, but I hope this is completely different from your "FBI" funds the 1993 WTC bombers.

TAM

9/11 Chewy Defense · 9th August 2007, 05:23 PM

Here's a link to Ramzi Yousef that might debunk this bit of non-sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 05:25 PM

Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper lol

Thunder · 9th August 2007, 05:29 PM

The United States made a strategic decision to support Islamic radical Mujahadeen against the Soviet Union. At the time, the USSR was the Evil Empire and had the power to nuke the world 20 times over. Helping the Muslims defeat the Soviet invasion, and thereby possibly preventing a further Soviet incursion into the Middle East, may have been a good decision. The enemy of our enemy was out friend, and at the time, the Soviets were our enemy and the Muslims were our friends.

The USSR also made allies of convenience. It is unfortunate that our former allies our now are enemy..but what should we have done? Let the USSR over-run Afghanistan?

Dumb All Over · 9th August 2007, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I cannot see your post, and that is fine, but I hope this is completely different from your "FBI" funds the 1993 WTC bombers.

TAM

You're almost right, T.A.M. Change FBI to CIA and you've got it!

T.A.M. · 9th August 2007, 05:31 PM

I figured as much...

TAM

Par · 9th August 2007, 05:31 PM

So, basically, according to one article, an unnamed intelligence source claims that the CIA funded and trained a certain mujahedeen faction in Afghanistan to fight the soviets. A number of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers apparently originated from that same faction.

Drudgewire · 9th August 2007, 05:32 PM

Well, if you try to click the link to the Herald article it gives you a Ghostbusters circle, and says it links to a headline entitled "Sources Claim CIA Aid Fueled Trade Center Blast."

That sounds like something that's never been verified by the "mainstream media" beyond "sources." Where's the follow-up that shows the evidence?

Oh I forgot, the only time the mainstream media has reliability is when they report things without evidence. That's the way "telling the truth" is done by you guys.

T.A.M. · 9th August 2007, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Par

So, basically, according to one article, an unnamed intelligence source claims that the CIA funded and trained a certain mujahedeen faction in Afghanistan to fight the soviets. A number of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers apparently originated from that same faction.

sounds like a conspiracy to me...lol

TAM

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

You're almost right, T.A.M. Change FBI to CIA and you've got it!

I didn't start the other thread. This deserves its own since it brings in the wider issue of blowback and CIA training of Mujahadeen.

Hokulele · 9th August 2007, 05:37 PM

I have access to that article, and Revolutionary91 is misrepresenting it (surprise). The statement regarding the CIA is:

Originally Posted by Boston Herald

The CIA is "partly culpable" for the World Trade Center bombing because it helped train and support several of the men accused in the deadly blast, intelligence sources said.

Nowhere in that article does it claim that the internal report found the CIA to be responsible. There is mention of an internal report, but only that it was examining the CIA's role, no discussion of any conclusions. All claims in that article are by the "unnamed sources", no corroborating documentation.

Rev, do you have anything to support this other than hearsay?

ETA: Also, Rev's link puts statements in the article wildly out of order and context. Again, no surprise. Rev, I strongly suggest you learn how to find primary sources, and verify the information you are given.

Par · 9th August 2007, 05:38 PM

So, what’s the got to do with conspiracy theories? Shouldn’t it be in the politics section?

Drudgewire · 9th August 2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Par

So, what’s the got to do with conspiracy theories? Shouldn’t it be in the politics section?

It would if it were true.

9/11 Chewy Defense · 9th August 2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper lol

And who says your information wasn't editted by trolls? Hmmmmm! You might want to think about that really hard Rev.

Norseman · 9th August 2007, 05:42 PM

Rev91, here you can read up on the Afghan War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...vement_and_aid

By the way, during the Second World War USA was in an alliance of convenience with the Soviet Union against their common enemy Nazi Germany. USA provided the Soviet Union with enormous amounts of supplies. The Soviet army drove to Berlin in American trucks. But as soon as Germany was defeated that alliance of convenience almost instantly turned in to the Cold War. This is no different. History is filled with former allies turning on each other.

AZCat · 9th August 2007, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

I have access to that article, and Revolutionary91 is misrepresenting it (surprise). The statement regarding the CIA is:

Nowhere in that article does it claim that the internal report found the CIA to be responsible. There is mention of an internal report, but only that it was examining the CIA's role, no discussion of any conclusions. All claims in that article are by the "unnamed sources", no corroborating documentation.

Rev, do you have anything to support this other than hearsay?

ETA: Also, Rev's link puts statements in the article wildly out of order and context. Again, no surprise. Rev, I strongly suggest you learn how to find primary sources, and verify the information you are given.

To be fair, it wasn't Rev91 who wrote the quoted part - it was from the cooperativeresearch web site, where I have found similar mistakes in the past. Whoever compiles the "time line" does a poor job, IMO.

9/11 Chewy Defense · 9th August 2007, 05:46 PM

Why don't you say this is "trolled" Rev?:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

Hokulele · 9th August 2007, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by AZCat

To be clear, it wasn't Rev91 who wrote the quoted part - it was from the cooperativeresearch web site, where I have found similar mistakes in the past. Whoever compiles the "time line" does a poor job, IMO.

Good point. It does emphasize the fact that Rev91 should not be using such sites for quotes unless he can either independently verify their accuracy, or unless he can trace them back to the primary sources. Without that double-checking, his evidence will always be suspect.

Drudgewire · 9th August 2007, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by AZCat

To be clear, it wasn't Rev91 who wrote the quoted part - it was from the cooperativeresearch web site, where I have found similar mistakes in the past. Whoever compiles the "time line" does a poor job, IMO.

He was the one who brought it here and presented it as coming from the mainstream media however.

So life lesson Rev. When you say something comes from a mainstream source, be sure you're linking directly to the mainstream media piece.

AZCat · 9th August 2007, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Good point. It does emphasize the fact that Rev91 should not be using such sites for quotes unless he can either independently verify their accuracy, or unless he can trace them back to the primary sources. Without that double-checking, his evidence will always be suspect.

Know your sources - an important lesson for anyone (truther and skeptics alike) to learn.

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

He was the one who brought it here and presented it as coming from the mainstream media however.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Rev91 needs to learn to read sources critically, even if they seem on the surface to be legitimate.

CptColumbo · 9th August 2007, 05:54 PM

I thought it was the FBI.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=89671

Revolutionary91 · 9th August 2007, 05:57 PM

Drudgewire read my opening post. I said it cites media sources.

Drudgewire · 9th August 2007, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Drudgewire read my opening post. I said it cites media sources.

Which was enough for you to unquestionably proclaim "it was an inside job." Who needs to read more?

Dumb All Over · 9th August 2007, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Drudgewire read my opening post. I said it cites media sources.

Hmm...posted at 6:15, edited at 6:40.

Right.

(all times local)

Drudgewire · 9th August 2007, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Hmm...posted at 6:15, edited at 6:40.

Right.

(all times local)

Nice catch. I didn't think I read it wrong.

ETA: I just couldn't be sure because of research.

Par · 9th August 2007, 06:04 PM

Right. So how does this show that the bombing was an inside job, I wonder?

9/11 Chewy Defense · 9th August 2007, 06:05 PM

Rev still believes that 9/11 was an "inside job"? Here's what I think:

PhantomWolf · 9th August 2007, 06:59 PM

heh, if it was a conspiracy everytime the CIA trained a revolutionary group only to have them turn around and stab the US in the back..... Just take a short look at the history of Central America. Throughout the 1950-70's the US was helping rebels depose one AHTPLD^* only to have the guy they replaced him with turn out to be an even bigger AHTLD.

^*American Hating Tin Pot Little Dictator

Alt+F4 · 10th August 2007, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper lol

Yeah, the same major newspaper that reported in 1969 that Apollo 11 astronauts walked on the moon. I don't blame you for not going back to the Moon Hoax thread, you were humiliated there.

Jonnyclueless · 10th August 2007, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

I didn't start the other thread. This deserves its own since it brings in the wider issue of blowback and CIA training of Mujahadeen.

ah, so now it goes from funding to training. I's like playing the telephone game.

Revolutionary91 · 10th August 2007, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

ah, so now it goes from funding to training. I's like playing the telephone game.

Erm...training is in the title of the thread.

Cuddles · 10th August 2007, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper

Sadly, this is probably one of the most accurate things Rev has ever posted.

Par · 10th August 2007, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

From the terror timeline, citing mainstream sources
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...partlyculpable

Amazing how they happen to have CIA links just like the ISI links to Atta. This was an inside job.

So, how does this rather meagre article show that the bombing was an “inside job”?

strathmeyer · 10th August 2007, 08:15 AM

If Wikipedia is for trolls why do they spend so much time here?

beachnut · 10th August 2007, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

From the terror timeline, citing mainstream sources
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...partlyculpable

Amazing how they happen to have CIA links just like the ISI links to Atta. This was an inside job.

You are spam, this is already a thread. Darn, are you a kid or something. Wake up spam man.

I think truthers help the idiots for the first bombing. The bomb was not big enough. They rented a van, and one of the smart truthers went back to get a refund on the rent. Smart terrorist had to have help from a fact less truther, you know someone like you who starts threads already in progress.

beachnut · 10th August 2007, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

I didn't start the other thread. This deserves its own since it brings in the wider issue of blowback and CIA training of Mujahadeen.

He smart man, you have TAM on ignore, or are you a liar? Man on the moon, and you mess it up. F for history, F for science, F for not seeing LC video are only for those who are not able to find facts.

beachnut · 10th August 2007, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper lol

That is a toss up. Sorry, wrong again. Do you even try?

johnny karate · 10th August 2007, 10:25 AM

Despite whether or not there is any veracity to this information (Which it seems there isn't. What is this for you now Rev, strike 142?), its posting is just another classic example of how Truthers cherry-pick what they want from sources they otherwise decry as biased, uninformed, or in some other way compromised.

Because main stream media is nothing more than an arm of the NWO whose sole purpose is to spread their lies and propaganda, right?

Well, unless of course they report something that Truthers can torture into supporting their claims, in which case everything they say is the absolute truth.

SpaceMonkeyZero · 10th August 2007, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

The USSR also made allies of convenience. It is unfortunate that our former allies our now are enemy..but what should we have done? Let the USSR over-run Afghanistan?

With hindsight being 20/20, we probably should have allowed it. The Soviet Union still would have still collapsed. And, after all, some of the former soviet states are now our allies against islamic terrorists...

9th August 2007, 05:15 PM	#1
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	CIA trained and funded 1993 wtc bombers From the terror timeline, citing mainstream sources Quote: The Boston Herald reports that an internal CIA report has concluded that the agency is “partially culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (see February 26, 1993) because it helped train and support some of the bombers. One source with knowledge of the report says, “It was determined that a significant amount of blowback appeared to have occurred.” A US intelligence source claims the CIA gave at least $1 billion to forces in Afghanistan connected to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. More than a half-dozen of the WTC bombers belonged to this faction, and some of the CIA money paid for their training. The source says, “By giving these people the funding that we did, a situation was created in which it could be safely argued that we bombed the World Trade Center.” Those connected to the bombing who went to Afghanistan include Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, Clement Rodney Hampton-el, Siddig Siddig Ali, Ahmed Ajaj, and Mahmud Abouhalima. [Boston Herald, 1/24/1994] Additionally, Ramzi Yousef trained in Afghanistan near the end of the Afghan war, and there are claims he was recruited by the CIA (see Late 1980s). “Intelligence sources say the CIA used the al-Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn—founded to support the Afghani rebels fighting Soviet occupation—to funnel aid to Hekmatyar, setting the stage for terrorists here to acquire the money, guns and training needed to later attack the Trade Center. CIA support also made it easier for alleged terrorist leaders to enter the country.” [Boston Herald, 1/24/1994] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...partlyculpable Amazing how they happen to have CIA links just like the ISI links to Atta. This was an inside job.
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Last edited by Revolutionary91; 9th August 2007 at 05:40 PM.

9th August 2007, 05:25 PM	#4
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper lol
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 05:29 PM	#5
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	The United States made a strategic decision to support Islamic radical Mujahadeen against the Soviet Union. At the time, the USSR was the Evil Empire and had the power to nuke the world 20 times over. Helping the Muslims defeat the Soviet invasion, and thereby possibly preventing a further Soviet incursion into the Middle East, may have been a good decision. The enemy of our enemy was out friend, and at the time, the Soviets were our enemy and the Muslims were our friends. The USSR also made allies of convenience. It is unfortunate that our former allies our now are enemy..but what should we have done? Let the USSR over-run Afghanistan?
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

9th August 2007, 05:30 PM	#6
Dumb All Over A Little Ugly on the Side Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name) Posts: 6,844	Originally Posted by T.A.M. I cannot see your post, and that is fine, but I hope this is completely different from your "FBI" funds the 1993 WTC bombers. TAM You're almost right, T.A.M. Change FBI to CIA and you've got it!
	__________________ The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin

9th August 2007, 05:31 PM	#8
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,768	So, basically, according to one article, an unnamed intelligence source claims that the CIA funded and trained a certain mujahedeen faction in Afghanistan to fight the soviets. A number of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers apparently originated from that same faction.
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,768

9th August 2007, 05:19 PM	#2
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	I cannot see your post, and that is fine, but I hope this is completely different from your "FBI" funds the 1993 WTC bombers. TAM

9th August 2007, 05:23 PM	#3
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,593	Here's a link to Ramzi Yousef that might debunk this bit of non-sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef

9th August 2007, 05:32 PM	#9
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,421	Well, if you try to click the link to the Herald article it gives you a Ghostbusters circle, and says it links to a headline entitled "Sources Claim CIA Aid Fueled Trade Center Blast." That sounds like something that's never been verified by the "mainstream media" beyond "sources." Where's the follow-up that shows the evidence? Oh I forgot, the only time the mainstream media has reliability is when they report things without evidence. That's the way "telling the truth" is done by you guys.

9th August 2007, 05:32 PM	#10
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	Originally Posted by Par So, basically, according to one article, an unnamed intelligence source claims that the CIA funded and trained a certain mujahedeen faction in Afghanistan to fight the soviets. A number of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers apparently originated from that same faction. sounds like a conspiracy to me...lol TAM

9th August 2007, 05:33 PM	#11
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Originally Posted by Dumb All Over You're almost right, T.A.M. Change FBI to CIA and you've got it! I didn't start the other thread. This deserves its own since it brings in the wider issue of blowback and CIA training of Mujahadeen.
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 05:37 PM	#12
Hokulele Deleterious Slab of Damnation Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 29,577	I have access to that article, and Revolutionary91 is misrepresenting it (surprise). The statement regarding the CIA is: Originally Posted by Boston Herald The CIA is "partly culpable" for the World Trade Center bombing because it helped train and support several of the men accused in the deadly blast, intelligence sources said. Nowhere in that article does it claim that the internal report found the CIA to be responsible. There is mention of an internal report, but only that it was examining the CIA's role, no discussion of any conclusions. All claims in that article are by the "unnamed sources", no corroborating documentation. Rev, do you have anything to support this other than hearsay? ETA: Also, Rev's link puts statements in the article wildly out of order and context. Again, no surprise. Rev, I strongly suggest you learn how to find primary sources, and verify the information you are given.
	__________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

9th August 2007, 05:38 PM	#13
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,768	So, what’s the got to do with conspiracy theories? Shouldn’t it be in the politics section?
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,768

9th August 2007, 05:40 PM	#14
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,421	Originally Posted by Par So, what’s the got to do with conspiracy theories? Shouldn’t it be in the politics section? It would if it were true.

9th August 2007, 05:42 PM	#16
Norseman Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 643	Rev91, here you can read up on the Afghan War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...vement_and_aid By the way, during the Second World War USA was in an alliance of convenience with the Soviet Union against their common enemy Nazi Germany. USA provided the Soviet Union with enormous amounts of supplies. The Soviet army drove to Berlin in American trucks. But as soon as Germany was defeated that alliance of convenience almost instantly turned in to the Cold War. This is no different. History is filled with former allies turning on each other.
	Last edited by Norseman; 9th August 2007 at 06:07 PM. Reason: Spelling

9th August 2007, 05:44 PM	#17
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by Hokulele I have access to that article, and Revolutionary91 is misrepresenting it (surprise). The statement regarding the CIA is: Nowhere in that article does it claim that the internal report found the CIA to be responsible. There is mention of an internal report, but only that it was examining the CIA's role, no discussion of any conclusions. All claims in that article are by the "unnamed sources", no corroborating documentation. Rev, do you have anything to support this other than hearsay? ETA: Also, Rev's link puts statements in the article wildly out of order and context. Again, no surprise. Rev, I strongly suggest you learn how to find primary sources, and verify the information you are given. To be fair, it wasn't Rev91 who wrote the quoted part - it was from the cooperativeresearch web site, where I have found similar mistakes in the past. Whoever compiles the "time line" does a poor job, IMO.
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Last edited by AZCat; 9th August 2007 at 05:49 PM. Reason: changed a word for some petty reason.

9th August 2007, 05:46 PM	#18
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,593	Why don't you say this is "trolled" Rev?: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

9th August 2007, 05:48 PM	#19
Hokulele Deleterious Slab of Damnation Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 29,577	Originally Posted by AZCat To be clear, it wasn't Rev91 who wrote the quoted part - it was from the cooperativeresearch web site, where I have found similar mistakes in the past. Whoever compiles the "time line" does a poor job, IMO. Good point. It does emphasize the fact that Rev91 should not be using such sites for quotes unless he can either independently verify their accuracy, or unless he can trace them back to the primary sources. Without that double-checking, his evidence will always be suspect.
	__________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

9th August 2007, 05:52 PM	#21
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by Hokulele Good point. It does emphasize the fact that Rev91 should not be using such sites for quotes unless he can either independently verify their accuracy, or unless he can trace them back to the primary sources. Without that double-checking, his evidence will always be suspect. Know your sources - an important lesson for anyone (truther and skeptics alike) to learn. Originally Posted by Drudgewire He was the one who brought it here and presented it as coming from the mainstream media however. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Rev91 needs to learn to read sources critically, even if they seem on the surface to be legitimate.
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

9th August 2007, 05:54 PM	#22
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Lots of places Posts: 9,237	I thought it was the FBI. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=89671
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

9th August 2007, 05:57 PM	#23
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Drudgewire read my opening post. I said it cites media sources.
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

9th August 2007, 06:00 PM	#24
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,421	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 Drudgewire read my opening post. I said it cites media sources. Which was enough for you to unquestionably proclaim "it was an inside job." Who needs to read more?

9th August 2007, 06:02 PM	#26
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,421	Originally Posted by Dumb All Over Hmm...posted at 6:15, edited at 6:40. Right. (all times local) Nice catch. I didn't think I read it wrong. ETA: I just couldn't be sure because of research.
	Last edited by Drudgewire; 9th August 2007 at 06:06 PM.

9th August 2007, 06:04 PM	#27
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,768	Right. So how does this show that the bombing was an inside job, I wonder?
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,768

9th August 2007, 06:59 PM	#29
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 21,203	heh, if it was a conspiracy everytime the CIA trained a revolutionary group only to have them turn around and stab the US in the back..... Just take a short look at the history of Central America. Throughout the 1950-70's the US was helping rebels depose one AHTPLD^* only to have the guy they replaced him with turn out to be an even bigger AHTLD. ^*American Hating Tin Pot Little Dictator
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

10th August 2007, 07:17 AM	#30
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper lol Yeah, the same major newspaper that reported in 1969 that Apollo 11 astronauts walked on the moon. I don't blame you for not going back to the Moon Hoax thread, you were humiliated there.

10th August 2007, 07:23 AM	#31
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,546	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 I didn't start the other thread. This deserves its own since it brings in the wider issue of blowback and CIA training of Mujahadeen. ah, so now it goes from funding to training. I's like playing the telephone game.

10th August 2007, 07:27 AM	#32
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838	Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless ah, so now it goes from funding to training. I's like playing the telephone game. Erm...training is in the title of the thread.
Revolutionary91 Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 838

10th August 2007, 08:07 AM	#33
Cuddles Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 18,752	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper Sadly, this is probably one of the most accurate things Rev has ever posted.

10th August 2007, 08:13 AM	#34
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,768	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 From the terror timeline, citing mainstream sources http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...partlyculpable Amazing how they happen to have CIA links just like the ISI links to Atta. This was an inside job. So, how does this rather meagre article show that the bombing was an “inside job”?
Par Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,768

10th August 2007, 08:15 AM	#35
strathmeyer Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,380	If Wikipedia is for trolls why do they spend so much time here?

10th August 2007, 08:15 AM	#36
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,120	they really are pre 9/11 truther who trained them Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 From the terror timeline, citing mainstream sources http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...partlyculpable Amazing how they happen to have CIA links just like the ISI links to Atta. This was an inside job. You are spam, this is already a thread. Darn, are you a kid or something. Wake up spam man. I think truthers help the idiots for the first bombing. The bomb was not big enough. They rented a van, and one of the smart truthers went back to get a refund on the rent. Smart terrorist had to have help from a fact less truther, you know someone like you who starts threads already in progress.
	Last edited by beachnut; 10th August 2007 at 08:19 AM.

10th August 2007, 08:18 AM	#37
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,120	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 I didn't start the other thread. This deserves its own since it brings in the wider issue of blowback and CIA training of Mujahadeen. He smart man, you have TAM on ignore, or are you a liar? Man on the moon, and you mess it up. F for history, F for science, F for not seeing LC video are only for those who are not able to find facts.

10th August 2007, 08:38 AM	#38
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,120	Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 Yeah, an encyclopedia edited by trolls is more reliable than a major newspaper lol That is a toss up. Sorry, wrong again. Do you even try?

10th August 2007, 10:25 AM	#39
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 16,207	Despite whether or not there is any veracity to this information (Which it seems there isn't. What is this for you now Rev, strike 142?), its posting is just another classic example of how Truthers cherry-pick what they want from sources they otherwise decry as biased, uninformed, or in some other way compromised. Because main stream media is nothing more than an arm of the NWO whose sole purpose is to spread their lies and propaganda, right? Well, unless of course they report something that Truthers can torture into supporting their claims, in which case everything they say is the absolute truth.

10th August 2007, 10:44 AM	#40
SpaceMonkeyZero Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,284	Originally Posted by parky76 The USSR also made allies of convenience. It is unfortunate that our former allies our now are enemy..but what should we have done? Let the USSR over-run Afghanistan? With hindsight being 20/20, we probably should have allowed it. The Soviet Union still would have still collapsed. And, after all, some of the former soviet states are now our allies against islamic terrorists...