Old School Truth - 93 WTC was an FBI JOB!
• http://MeetTheTruth.com (Forget the Press)Mini-Docu/Tv-Show Meet The Truth - Emad Salem was empowered by the FBI and instructed to give radicals live explosives to be used on the WTC in 1993. So should we ask who Put Thermite In The World Trade Center on September 11th 2001? ex-911 Commis
In 1993 an FBI Informant secretly recorded his FBI handler while having conversations that discussed—the FBI being instrumental in allowing terrorists to make a “real bomb” to blow up the NYC Trade Center.
After terrorists set off the bomb at the Trade Center the informant's tapes were published by the New York and LA Times. Six people were killed. Did love ones of those killed sue the FBI or was there an out of court government settlement; lawsuits would have been problematic after the informant’s tapes showed (FBI involvement in the bombing.) Subsequent to the bombing, there was rampant speculation in political circles that certain factions in government wanted a bombing in order to speed passage of new "anti-crime legislation." Months prior “The Crime Control Act of 1993” was introduced, also known as S.8 that included huge appropriations for hiring and paying police and government agencies to pursue, prosecute and preempt domestic terrorist Acts. At the time, terrorism was not a problem in the U.S. Under the broad provisions of S.8, labor and protest demonstrators could be charged as terrorists if police alleged they blocked public access; intimidated or coerced a civilian population under 18USC 2331. Subsequently conservatives and liberals protested the legislation. Despite the 1993 bombing of the NY Trade Center, S.8 failed to pass.
Subsequently months prior to the bombing of the( Federal Oklahoma building), the “1995, first Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act was introduced.” This act included many provisions from the failed “Crime Control Act of 1993.” After the Oklahoma federal building was bombed, Congress quickly passed the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act; the passed bill included several provisions from the failed to pass “Crime Control Act of 1993.” For example: under the 1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act, prosecutors could use Secret Hearings, secret paid informants, secret testimony, secret witnesses and other hidden evidence to convict U.S. Citizens for terrorist acts. Defense against government terrorist charges, even against the Death Penalty became difficult if not possible; the passed legislation was particularly alarmingly because U.S. Police/Government routinely pay and make deals with informants to provide court testimony.
S.8 The Crime Control Act of 1993 Asset Forfeiture Provisions appeared aimed at public dissent and were written like RICO laws taking on the prospect of Political Property Forfeitures. Broadly written—intent to commit terrorist acts was defined: "appear to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Under S.8: Any picket line that was alleged to have blocked public access could have qualified as a terrorist act to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Should violence resulted for any reason at a public assembly, the Property Forfeiture Provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be triggered causing forfeiture of attending demonstrators' homes used for meetings and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event. Demonstrators who left
Secret Witnesses - Secret Trials: Protection of jurors and witnesses in Capital Cases: Chapter 113B Section 138 stated that the list of jurors and witnesses need not be furnished to Capital Offense Defendants should the court find by a “preponderance of the evidence” that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any person. Note: Only a preponderance of evidence.
Section 3509 would have set the groundwork for Government Forfeiture Squads to randomly invade innocent owners' homes and businesses with a minimum of probable cause. Government would only have to (assert) "a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment."