Who blew up the OK City building?


PDA






Beethoven
June 20, 2005, 12:53 PM
Like many of you here, I read Unintended Consequences by John Ross.

For those of you who haven't read it yet, stop reading this thread and BUY THE BOOK AND READ IT!!! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888118040/qid=1119286021/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-6737716-9180917?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

In UC, John Ross makes some very interesting and thought-provoking statements.

I want to know your thoughts on the matter.

Among them:

- The destruction to the building was not consistent with the type of explosives that the govt. claims were used; a truck full of an unknown amount of fertilizer based explosive.

- Not a SINGLE employee of the ATF was in the building that day.

- The type of explosive that was allegedly used would be exceedingly difficult to detonate in such large quantities as would have been needed to sufficiently damage a building.


There were a few other things that I'm sure I left out, but those were the ones I recall.

What are your thoughts?

Any of this stuff true/accurate?

Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Who blew up the OK City building?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rebar
June 20, 2005, 12:56 PM
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbhead.jpg

Third_Rail
June 20, 2005, 12:57 PM
AN/FO is plenty easy to detonate in large quantities, easier than in smaller quantities. I still don't think that's all that was used, though. Just too much damage for the claimed amount, based on research done.


Other than that, everything else is just coincidence, I think.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 01:05 PM
The idea McVeigh blew the building is a nice fantasy. For those who want an excuse for bashing the militia. For those who want simple explanations. For those who don't want to deal with government corruption. For those who don't want to acknowledge Muslim terrorism...

For the rest of us the idea McVeigh did it basically alone is laughable. That he did it with a fertilizer bomb parked out front is hysterical.

I was sick at home that day, laid out on my couch. i watched ever bit of coverage from the moment it hit the TV. Until noon'ish local affiliates handled most of the coverage. One important thing they focused on was the OKCFD was inside the building reporting they had found more explosives and these were clearly live. Sometime after noon the network talking heads took total control and everything changed with an "interview" done with some guy supposedly several blocks up the road in an office. He stated that he was an explosives expert and this was clerarly a truck bomb(!?!?!?!).

That was that.

It was a truck bomb and there either were no explosives inside or they were "fake" training devices and anything proposed to the contrary was "tinhattism". Fine, whatever. I know better.

Most likely thing is Muslim terrorists made this their first serious hit. McVeigh was certainly a part of it, but not via some silly truck bomb. The reason no Alphabet Agencies were there is because they knew what was coming, just not who nor when(thus why witnesses saw feds coming the area early that AM). The "coverup" existed not to help Clinton or bash the militia(though it was good for both) but because the feds screwed the pooch and didn't get their man till after the fact.

Never ascribe to conspiracy what can better be assigned to incompetence and petty human nature. Oh, be ready for the usual suspects to post the usual tin hat pictures because you aren't buying without question the government spiel.

BostonGeorge
June 20, 2005, 01:07 PM
http://www.womanthouartgod.com/images/mcveigh2.jpg

CentralTexas
June 20, 2005, 01:10 PM
the fact McVeigh wasn't alone as they claim. There were a multitude of security & ATM videos of the street showing the truck arrive and what happened up until the blast. Why are all Freedom of Information requests for those videos denied? What is there to hide except for who is in the truck?
I also like the broadcast news reports (which I have seen and have copies of)from Oklahoma stations right after the blast happened, where the news reported other bombs were found and being defused according to local authorities, the street interviews with employees of certain federal agencies who were told not to come in that day etc.
But other than that I'm sure McVeigh acted alone.... :rolleyes:
CT

As far as those here who instantly scream "tin foil hat" to such questions look up the history of the Cuban Missle Crisis where the JCS floated the idea to JFK of shooting down an AMERICAN airliner and blaming the other side....
To consider such actions usually mean you are capable of such actions

Lone_Gunman
June 20, 2005, 01:11 PM
Come on guys... the government would never lie to us, right?

Keaner
June 20, 2005, 01:12 PM
Where is the sit down and grab a box of popcorn smilie when you need it :evil:

wmenorr67
June 20, 2005, 01:14 PM
Another good book is The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis. She was a newsreporter from OKC and did alot of investigative reporting on the bombing and she got some inside info that later was denied.

Third_Rail
June 20, 2005, 01:21 PM
Uh....so he didn't act alone? Proof?


Anything at all?

RevDisk
June 20, 2005, 01:28 PM
Uh....so he didn't act alone? Proof?

Apparently it's sitting in a warehouse and the feds are denying FOIA access to it. Mostly ATM and security camera footage.

If McVeigh was by himself as the feds say and he is now dead, why not release the footage and all other evidence? If they were worried about security vulnerabilities shown in the material, they've had a good number of years to fix them. If they were worried about other people shown in the tape but had not yet been caught, it's been a good number of years and if they haven't caught the folks by now... Heh.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 01:40 PM
(which I have seen and have copies of)

YOU HAVE COPIES?!?!?!?!?!??!?! I tried to get cuts directly from one of the stations a couple months after the event and was told those tapes had been destroyed! What would it take to get you to make me a copy or 10?

Sungun09
June 20, 2005, 01:42 PM
Someone may be able to explain "Brissance" regarding ANFO.

Also, how come we haven't seen pictures of the area across the street. It seems to me that this was not a shaped charge and as such should have created a roughly circular zone of damage encompassing the other side of the street.

Beware - you are being lied too.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 01:48 PM
Buildings opposite Murrah were hammered hard. Oddities though, included the fact it was concussion damage for the most part and months later those buildings had still not been cleaned up, or even touched. SoF did an article on it at the time with some very good pics.

thereisnospoon
June 20, 2005, 01:48 PM
Central Texas...great points

The proof that the non-tin-foil-hat guys are looking for is locked up with the video being shot from the camera in the car behind JFK that day in Dallas and that door from the "Compund" in Waco...

Thanks to Rebar for posting the Tin-Foil-Hat Brigade recruitment poster....much appreciated.

Spoon

rcm
June 20, 2005, 01:49 PM
I do not know who to believe anymore....didn't this same kind of who dun it thing come on 9-11 with the plane that hit the Pentagon?

I lean towards the baloney side when it comes to the goverment telling the truth but...I have to have something laid out B&W for it sink in one way or the other.

:banghead: This is generally where I end up!

Preacherman
June 20, 2005, 01:50 PM
Not another conspiracy theory thread... :rolleyes:

For those of you who entertain such ideas, kindly take note of the following: Neither I, nor any right-thinking person, will place any - repeat, ANY - stock in your ideas unless and until you can come up with at least one piece of hard, verifiable, measurable evidence, that can be taken to court and assessed as a fact. In every conspiracy theory I've heard - including the OKC bombing - there have been suggestions, innuendo's, allegations, etc. by the bucketful, but never a single fact that has been objectively verified and that contradicts the "official" version of events. Unless and until such evidence emerges, kindly don't waste our time with unverified (and unverifiable) theories.

:fire:

thereisnospoon
June 20, 2005, 01:51 PM
Preacherman...

You're taking the "fun" out of dysfuntional... :evil:

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 01:52 PM
Whatever, Preach. You believe what you want, some of us have a problem with simplistic explanations, especially when they fly in the face of the initial explanations at the time of the event that were publicized on national television for several hours. :fire: :rolleyes:

CentralTexas
June 20, 2005, 02:01 PM
-understand where you are coming from but like the video camera footage from OKC bombing the Government won't letpeople investigate through FOIA laws.
That to me is proof in itself something is wrong....
CT

RevDisk
June 20, 2005, 02:05 PM
Someone may be able to explain "Brissance" regarding ANFO.

Dictionary definition is "The shattering effect of the sudden release of energy in an explosion." (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

Brisance used to be defined as the speed of the flamefront. Now it's the relative performance of an explosive in any one of a bunch of different tests, measured by the unconfined pressure on a target object. Usually measured in psi these days, often with the plate dent method tho the sand method is common too.

In plainer english, how big of a boom it makes when not surrounded by anything except air.

Usually explosives are tamped. That is, stuff is put around the explosive to focus it better. A varient of this is to place an explosive in a hole. Instead of wrapping a building column with TNT (or whatever), you drill a hole in the column and place the TNT into the column itself. More or less, the explosive energy mostly wants to go to the path of least resistance. (Any bomb guys or physics geeks, please don't flame me too bad, I'm trying to simplify.) If an explosive is merely placed against an object without tamping, the majority of the energy goes into the air instead of into the object you want to destroy. This is very ineffective.

Ways of getting around this ineffectiveness is shaped charges. This focuses the explosive force by altering the shape of an explosive to point all that boom at a specific point. Not perfect, as a lot of energy is 'wasted' into the air instead of the target object, but better than nothing.

Without tamping, shaping, or other techniques, a bomb blast will spend its energy in every direction instead of mostly the direction you want it to go.


(Edit : Removed some bomb info, and clarified shaped charges a bit more.)

rock jock
June 20, 2005, 02:05 PM
For those of you who entertain such ideas, kindly take note of the following: Neither I, nor any right-thinking person, will place any - repeat, ANY - stock in your ideas unless and until you can come up with at least one piece of hard, verifiable, measurable evidence, that can be taken to court and assessed as a fact. In every conspiracy theory I've heard - including the OKC bombing - there have been suggestions, innuendo's, allegations, etc. by the bucketful, but never a single fact that has been objectively verified and that contradicts the "official" version of events. Unless and until such evidence emerges, kindly don't waste our time with unverified (and unverifiable) theories.
+1000

John Ross is not a structural engineer specialzing in explosives. That is the only "expert" opinion I am willing to listen to.

As I always say, conspiracies are the way that lonely and confused people deal with a world that is frightening to them.

Molon Labe
June 20, 2005, 02:06 PM
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Please provide extraordinary evidence that anyone other than McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 02:08 PM
John Ross is not a structural engineer specialzing in explosives. That is the only "expert" opinion I am willing to listen to.

So which engineer and explosives expert do you believe? The one that fits your world view, I'm sure.

As I always say, conspiracies are the way that lonely and confused people deal with a world that is frightening to them.

Funny, that's what I always say about people who brand anything outside their narrow world-view "conspiracy".

cuchulainn
June 20, 2005, 02:12 PM
especially when they fly in the face of the initial explanations at the time of the event that were publicized on national television for several hours. Would those be the same news reports that incorrectly speculated that the explosion was the handiwork of Islamic terrorists?

At-the-scene reports of chaos are notoriously incorrect.

Maybe there was a government conspiracy behind OKC. Maybe there are aliens visiting Earth. But, as Preacherman has pointed out, the evidence is less than solid.

fnord

Risasi
June 20, 2005, 02:23 PM
Beethoven, 2nd Amendment, Revdisk,

This isn't the conspiracy you are looking for. Move along...

Hawkmoon
June 20, 2005, 02:28 PM
For those of you who entertain such ideas, kindly take note of the following: Neither I, nor any right-thinking person, will place any - repeat, ANY - stock in your ideas unless and until you can come up with at least one piece of hard, verifiable, measurable evidence, that can be taken to court and assessed as a fact.
Preacherman, I consider myself to be a "right-thinking person," although I readily concede there may be more than one individual somewhere who would disagree. And contrary to your absolutist statement, as a right-thinking person I believe that we MUST put at least some credence in the possibility that these "conspiracy theories" just might be true.

It is exceedingly difficult to obtain verifiable evidence of a conspiracy when the same folks who may have planned and carried out the conspiracy are the folks who control the crime scene and who possess any physical evidence that might remain.

If you don't believe that our government lies to us, you must be enjoying some very powerful chemical stimuli. I have known as far back as Project Bluebook that the gummint lies. There were no alien bodies recovered at Roswell, correct? So why did a retired Colonel in the United States Army tell his nephew on his deathbed that his people had been assigned to guard the alien remains at a warehouse (or hanger, I don't remember which and it isn't important) in New Jersey? No, I don't have a signed statement, but I believe his words to be credible.

Our government at work is not a pretty thing. Even in the public agencies, individual rights are secondary to the "agenda." (By that I don't mean the usual cop-bashing stuff. I'm referring to the way agencies like the FBI treat an ordinary citizen who does the right thing and comes to them with evidence of a crime being committed. The good citizen is completely expendable.) Since I know first-hand how the public agencies work, why would I, as a "right-thinking" person, believe for a single nanosecond that the secret agencies who are accoutable to no one would behave better? To believe that would be an extreme logical disconnect.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 02:30 PM
Yes, I am quite certain the OKC bomb squad found activated but inert bombs inside the building and was too stupid to know they were inert(nevermind how their timing became activated). And I'm certain they would openly discuss this with the local media in their own town knowing they would be making fools of themselves.

Sorry, no, there is no lack of evidence. There is a lack of willingness to see. Same kind of thing I see when arguing with people who claim the PA is constitutional. Why? SCOTUS said so. SCOTUS said campaign finance reform and abortion are constitutional. Well they were wrong. "uhhhh..."

People see what they want to see.

Facts:

There were no ATF employees in the building.

There were feds all over the place much earlier that morning.

Video which would clarify many questions has been withheld in defiance of Freedom of information requests.

Witness reports changed and some were actually altered.

Experts disagree on the pressures and force and direction of the blast.

There's a lot more but I just am not going to do it. Preach said in another thread he was willing to dictate what could and could not be discussed here and I'm not in the mood see if he's serious. There is, however, a huge thread somewhere on TFL(and it's brother thread on freeconservatives from the same time) with a wealth of data. Many of the links were dead last time I looked but it was still worth a read. I just tried finding it and had no luck but I'm sure somebody can come up with it.

GEM
June 20, 2005, 02:36 PM
Heres' the way it comes down for me when I read claims about OKC or 9/11 that state that they were part of some governmental conspiracy.

GWB has been president for 5 years. If these claims are true and he did nothing under his watch, then he is:

a. traitor
b. an idiot.

While I don't like him as a president and am not impressed by his mental abilities, I don't think he is (a) or (b).

So to support and believe this claims, means that he is. Personally, I think Al-Qaeda blew up the Maine with a time machine and they attacked the Al'Amo.

centac
June 20, 2005, 02:36 PM
"It is exceedingly difficult to obtain verifiable evidence of a conspiracy when the same folks who may have planned and carried out the conspiracy are the folks who control the crime scene and who possess any physical evidence that might remain."

And what evidence supports this assertion?

thereisnospoon
June 20, 2005, 02:37 PM
"As I always say, conspiracies are the way that lonely and confused people deal with a world that is frightening to them."-RockJock

I am not skeered, I merely have a brain that is capable of seeing things as they are...if in fact you watched the same coverage I did during the OK bombing, you know there was a lot of confusion initially...it was the true first act of domestic terrorism I had ever witnessed in my short lifetime of twenty-six years (at the time of the bombing).

Now, that being said, let's dismiss all the hearsay eveidence about "middle eastern looking" suspects that were never found or the reports of unexploded bombs at the scene and focus on this one thing...Why doesUncle Sam refuse to relenquish the video footage shot by various ATM and security cameras around the Murrah building.

If you can explain that, I'll resign as the First Commander in Cheif of the Tin-Foil-Hat Brigade... :D

Beethoven
June 20, 2005, 02:39 PM
Not another conspiracy theory thread...

For those of you who entertain such ideas, kindly take note of the following: Neither I, nor any right-thinking person, will place any - repeat, ANY - stock in your ideas unless and until you can come up with at least one piece of hard, verifiable, measurable evidence, that can be taken to court and assessed as a fact. In every conspiracy theory I've heard - including the OKC bombing - there have been suggestions, innuendo's, allegations, etc. by the bucketful, but never a single fact that has been objectively verified and that contradicts the "official" version of events. Unless and until such evidence emerges, kindly don't waste our time with unverified (and unverifiable) theories.


Did you read UC?

Don't lay any blame at my feet.

I read the book and wanted to discuss some of what I read in there.

Sheesh, what's the point of a "discussion forum" when you can only discuss what certain people allow you to?

centac
June 20, 2005, 02:44 PM
"Why does Uncle Sam refuse to relenquish the video footage shot by various ATM and security cameras around the Murrah building."

Um, just a thought, but why not ask them? I am sure that Justice has some functionary in Public Information who would at least give a reason....

One that springs to mind is out of deference to next of kin and survivors, who may not really want to have the last moments of their lives for all to see.....the media didnt impress too many people by televising people leaping from the WTC....

And no, your "right to know" doesnt necessarily trump their right to grieve.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 02:49 PM
Well actually yes, it does. That's been pretty well established with the amazing number of things the media has gotten its hands on over the years. And the feds have been asked. So far as I have read they haven't deigned to answer we commoners.

Sheesh, what's the point of a "discussion forum" when you can only discuss what certain people allow you to?

I asked that a while back by PM and they haven't deigned to answer this commoner...

rock jock
June 20, 2005, 02:49 PM
Funny, that's what I always say about people who brand anything outside their narrow world-view "conspiracy".
Please see ealier note on factually verifiable and credible evidence. That is what separates fact from fantasy.

Contrary to your claim, I very much believe that govenments, including our own, are capable of the worst kind of misdeeds. But being capable of them and actually doing them, are two different things. One requires conjecture; the other requires factually verifaible and credible......., oh, never mind.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 02:52 PM
Like I said...

lee n. field
June 20, 2005, 02:53 PM
Most likely thing is Muslim terrorists made this their first serious hit. McVeigh was certainly a part of it, but not via some silly truck bomb. The reason no Alphabet Agencies were there is because they knew what was coming, just not who nor when(thus why witnesses saw feds coming the area early that AM). The "coverup" existed not to help Clinton or bash the militia(though it was good for both) but because the feds screwed the pooch and didn't get their man till after the fact.

The day it happened, the talking heads were saying "This has Middle East written all over it." As soon as I heard there was an ATF office inside, I thought it was domestic.

thereisnospoon
June 20, 2005, 02:54 PM
Centac...

So you're saying that the Government cares about the feelings of the survivors of this tragedy, but not say, the Waco tragedy, the footage of which played live for ALL to see, over and over again...I see what you mean. I guess I should resign now...anyone want my hat?

I know we live in a country where we are inoccent until proven guilty, so it is easy for someone to say, "Where's your proof?"

To you Centac and your buds I say what about probable cause...you have posted many times on this forum boasting about PC.

I have probable cause to believe that the Federal Government is withholding information that is vital to answering many questions about April 19th, 1995 based on conflicting evidence reports. They could easily close the books by being forthcoming, yet they refuse. Not proof of guilt, but it smells really funny...

p.s. Notice I didn't acuse them of doing it, just covering up vital facts!

odysseus
June 20, 2005, 02:56 PM
There were no alien bodies recovered at Roswell, correct?

Why is it in a conversation regarding one conspiracy theory, sometimes all kinds of others all get thrown in. It's no wonder the tin-hat comments come out when it spills over to extraterrestrial coverups. It's certainly not a good way to debate an issue...

Sorry, couldn't help myself to throw that in. :scrutiny:

jefnvk
June 20, 2005, 02:57 PM
So, who really killed Kenendy?

I'm with Preacherman on this one. And, the other problem I have with conspiracy theorists, is the very elitist attitude that some of them have. Of course, I am a simple minded person, blindly following the gov't if I don't believe in their conspiracies. When I choose to believe one source over another, I am just picking the side that I want to agree with, but when they do it, it is simply agreeing with the facts of the case.

Now, there may well be a conspiracy here. Oswald may have not shot Kennedy, planes may not have crashed into the Pentagon, and aliens really may be plotting with the gov't to take over the Earth. But, it is up to you to present us with enough evidence to make us believe, rather than expecting us to blindly follow you.

Gung-Ho
June 20, 2005, 03:23 PM
Uh....so he didn't act alone? Proof?


Anything at all?

Well just maybe some secrets CAN be kept. For instance, does anyone here really belive Oswald shot Kennedy?

Gung-Ho
June 20, 2005, 03:26 PM
From what I've read ANFO is a "low" high explosive. And large amounts of it tend to not all blow up. Besides did anyone here where they supposedly mixed all this stuff up? In the back of a moving van in a park? Damm the fumes alone would have killed them.

Joe Meyer
June 20, 2005, 03:26 PM
Go to www.infowars.com .Lots of good stuff there.

Sean Smith
June 20, 2005, 03:30 PM
Look, conspiracy theory kiddies, all I ask is that you don't spam my PM mailbox here again. :barf: :cuss: :mad: :fire:

I've always found it funny how conspiracy theory advocates will make fun of you for being blindly obedient because you... don't blindly believe them. ;)

Gung-Ho
June 20, 2005, 03:31 PM
John Ross is not a structural engineer specialzing in explosives. That is the only "expert" opinion I am willing to listen to.

All you have to do is just a little research, and you will find plenty of engineers and explosive experts that are saying no dirty-word way a truck bomb did it.

Third_Rail
June 20, 2005, 03:36 PM
Gung-Ho, AN/FO is easy to mix, easy to make. It DOES detonate better in larger amounts (over, say, 400 grams) than in smaller amounts. This is all in the research I've done.


However - I really, really doubt the fact that the amount used in the fashion used did that much damage. I think there were secondary charges wrapped around supporting pillars, etc.

AN/FO is powerful, but to leave some pillars intact near the truck and ones farther away were destroyed... :scrutiny:

richyoung
June 20, 2005, 03:37 PM
So, who really killed Kenendy?

Simple fact - Kennedy was already dead before the spectacular head shot - the wound in his neck had damaged his spine, and would likely have poved fatal. However, (this being a gun forum), if one was to answer rhe question: what was MOST LIKELY to cause the explosive head wound, a low velocity FMJ Itallian service round, or a high velocity holow point? I think most High Roaders would answer that the "head shot" effects are MORE LIKELY from a HP. Were firearms with high velocity hollowpoint ammo present? Yes, it is known that Secret Service agents in the car behind the presidential limo, (call sign "linebaker") were equipped with the then-new M-16/AR-15, and were issued hollowpoint ammo to minimize over-pentration and ricochet. I find the theory credible that the "head shot" was an accidental discharge originating in "linebaker", which for obvious reasons was covered up.


As to OKC, it doesn't matter how much ANFO you pile up in front of the Murrow building - it isn't going to break steel and reinforced concrete - it's OK for blowing tree stumps and excavating cattle ponds when properly tamped. To bring down a building of that construction requires something along the lines of semtex, TNT, dynamite, or C4.

Gung-Ho
June 20, 2005, 03:39 PM
Gung-Ho, AN/FO is easy to mix, easy to make. It DOES detonate better in larger amounts (over, say, 400 grams) than in smaller amounts. This is all in the research I've done.

Well, 400 grams is a long haul from what they said was used. And yes it is easy to make....but hundreds of pounds of it, in a confined space?

Gung-Ho
June 20, 2005, 03:41 PM
As to OKC, it doesn't matter how much ANFO you pile up in front of the Murrow building - it isn't going to break steel and reinforced concrete - it's OK for blowing tree stumps and excavating cattle ponds when properly tamped. To bring down a building of that construction requires something along the lines of semtex, TNT, dynamite, or C4.


Exactly.

TarpleyG
June 20, 2005, 03:43 PM
Please provide extraordinary evidence that anyone other than McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building.
Please provide extraordinary evidence that McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building, alone or not.

HankB
June 20, 2005, 03:45 PM
Lack of confidence in the veracity of the "official" explanations for OKC, Flight 800, Waco, etc., does not automatically translate into acceptance of a conspiracy you read about on the Internet.

And as for tinfoil hats . . . there are better things than tinfoil to keep the mind rays from hypnotizing you. See www.stopabductions.com

Beren
June 20, 2005, 03:48 PM
When discussing conspiracies, the first person to bring up aliens loses. I know that's a rule or something.

cuchulainn
June 20, 2005, 03:57 PM
The government is required to give a reason when it denies a FoIA request.

I'd be interested in knowing which of the reasons the feds gave. Those reasons are at 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(1)-(9) and (c)(1)-(3). [see below]

Now, do any of you Ross-ites know that answer?

Have you seen the FoIA request?

Have you seen the Gov't's denial letter?

Have you seen the appeal letter?

Have you seen the denial of the appeal?

Has Mr. Ross (or others) taken the matter to the courts or taken any other administrative steps available to them under a FOIA denial? Have you seen the paperwork for any of that?

Funny thing -- I did a google searches for

(a) "john ross" "freedom of information" "oklahoma city"
(b) "john ross" "foia" "oklahoma city"

I found none of the above -- that makes me wonder if the hoax here is the FOIA-denial story.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps that paper trail exists. If so, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Anyone have a link to it? :scrutiny:




http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/foiastat.htm

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information deleted shall be indicated at the place in the record where such deletion is made.

(c)(1) Whenever a request is made which involves access to records described in subsection (b)(7)(A) and--

(A) the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and

(B) there is reason to believe that (i) the subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency, and (ii) disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, the agency may, during only such time as that circumstance continues, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section.

(2) Whenever informant records maintained by a criminal law enforcement agency under an informant's name or personal identifier are requested by a third party according to the informant's name or personal identifier, the agency may treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section unless the informant's status as an informant has been officially confirmed.

(3) Whenever a request is made which involves access to records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation pertaining to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism, and the existence of the records is classified information as provided in subsection (b)(1), the Bureau may, as long as the existence of the records remains classified information, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section.

centac
June 20, 2005, 04:00 PM
"Please provide extraordinary evidence that McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building, alone or not."

Uh, there was this public trial, see.....never mind, I'm sure they were in on it.

All this is based on the belief that evidence exists that "they" wont acknowledge or release.... so how does anyone know what the "evidence" is? :scrutiny:

logical
June 20, 2005, 04:08 PM
How do we know it was even ever blown up. If they can fake the moon landings, anything's possible. :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
June 20, 2005, 04:40 PM
Can anyone think of a conspiracy theory that has come true?

Gung-Ho
June 20, 2005, 04:43 PM
Can anyone think of a conspiracy theory that has come true?

Now if it were a REALLY good conspiracy theory, even if it came true, could you tell? :D

richyoung
June 20, 2005, 04:51 PM
Sam Gronning, a licensed, professional blaster in Casper, Wyoming with 30 years experience in explosives, told us the (General) Partin letter "states in very precise technical terms what everyone in this business knows: No truck bomb of ANFO [ammonium nitrate fuel oil] out in the open is going to cause the kind of damage we had there" in Oklahoma City. "In 30 years of blasting, using everything from 100 percent nitrogel to ANFO, I've not seen anything to support that story."

Gronning notes that he recently detonated an ANFO charge more than three times the size of the one reportedly responsible for the Oklahoma destruction. "I set off 16,000 pounds of ANFO and was standing upright just 1,000 feet away from the blast," and even a bomb that size would not have caused the destruction experienced in the April 19th explosion, he said.

Dr. Rodger Raubach, who took his PhD in physical chemistry and served on the research faculty at Stanford University, says, "General Partin's assessment is absolutely correct. I don't care if they pulled up a Semi-trailer truck with 20 tons of ammonium nitrate; it wouldn't do the damage we saw there."

Raubach, who is the technical director of a chemical company, explaned that "the detonation velocity of the shock wave from an ANFO explosion is on the order of 3,500 meters per second. In comparison, military explosives generally have detonation velocities that hit 7,000 to 8,000-plus meters per second. Things like TNT have a detonation velocity of about 7,100 meters per second. The most energetic single-component explosive of this type, C-4 or RDX, is about 8,000 meters per second and above. You don't start doing big-time damage to heavy structures until you get into those ranges, which is why the military uses those explosives."

These guys seem to have the qualifications to judge...

taliv
June 20, 2005, 04:58 PM
conspiracy theories "come true"

U.N. Oil for Food programme ??
Watergate ??
Tuskegee Syphilis experiements ??

i could probably think of plenty more given a bit of time and the slightest bit of interest

Beethoven
June 20, 2005, 05:17 PM
Lack of confidence in the veracity of the "official" explanations for OKC, Flight 800, Waco, etc., does not automatically translate into acceptance of a conspiracy you read about on the Internet.


Strangely, that fact seems to escape just about everyone posting in this thread.

:rolleyes:

GRB
June 20, 2005, 05:24 PM
I think the second post in this thread pretty much says what i think of this hypothesis by way of that picture. I would not spend a penny on tis guy's book. Too much of a conspiracy behind every rock sort of mentality in it for me from the sounds of it. I guess he will make some money with it though from those who like to imagine, in essence, that the government is an evil empire out to totally enslave the populace by whatever means. Just my opinion, and I respect yours but just don't buy it. That same government that you claim is capable of putting together such a well planned and long lasting conspiracy effort is the same one that apparently can do little if anything right according to some of you. It cannot even keep our borders secure on a daily basis, cannot balance the budget, cannot thwart crime, cannot stick to any agenda, cannot run the war in Iraq efficiently, is full of (according to some of you at least by numerous repeated implications) inept boobs in government jobs. I just don't think so but that is just my opinion after having worked for the same government for 26 years. We would need a few more brain surgeons in our midst to pull off something like that, a few thousand more.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 05:28 PM
hang on a sec...

Boy, glad I edited that...

Fred Fuller
June 20, 2005, 05:31 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts103.html

Uncovering a DOJ Coverup
by Paul Craig Roberts

In 1995 Kenneth Trentadue was murdered by federal agents in a federal prison in Oklahoma City. A coverup immediately went into effect. Federal authorities claimed Trentadue, who was being held in a suicide-proof cell, had committed suicide by hanging himself, but the state coroner would not buy the story.

Prison authorities tried to get family consent to cremate the body. But Trentadue had been picked up on a minor parole violation, and the story of suicide by a happily married man delighted with his two-month old son raised red flags to the family.

When the Trentadue family received Kenneth’s body and heavy makeup was scraped away, the evidence (available in photos on the Internet) clearly shows a person who had been tortured and beaten. His throat was slashed and he may have been garroted. There are bruises, burns and cuts from the soles of Trentadue’s feet to his head, wounds that obviously were not self-inflicted.

As the state coroner noted at the time, every investigative rule was broken by the federal prison. The coroner was not allowed into the cell, and the cell was scrubbed down prior to investigation.

The federal coverup was completely transparent. A US senator made inquiries, but the US Department of Justice (sic), knowing that it would not be held accountable, stuck to its fabricated story.

That was a mistake. Trentadue’s brother, Jesse, is an attorney. He believes that federal officials, like everyone else, must be held accountable for their crimes. He has been battling the Justice (sic) Department and the FBI for a decade.

Jesse Trentadue has amassed evidence that his brother was mistaken for Tim McVeigh’s alleged accomplice in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Federal agents, believing that they had Richard Lee Guthrie in their hands, went too far in attempting to force him to talk.

Jesse Trentadue learned that the FBI had informants planted with two groups on which McVeigh may have relied: a white supremacist paramilitary training compound at Elohim City and the Mid-West Bank Robbery Gang. The implication is that the FBI had advance notice of McVeigh’s plans and may have been conducting a sting operation that went awry.

The FBI has documents that name the informants. Teletypes from then FBI director Louis Freeh dated January 4, 1996, and August 23, 1996, confirm that the FBI had informants imbedded with the Mid-West Bank Robbery Gang and in Elohim City. In these documents, Freeh reports to various FBI field offices that the Elohim City informant (possibly explosives expert and German national Andreas Carl Strassmeir) "allegedly has had a lengthy relationship with Timothy McVeigh" and "that McVeigh had placed a telephone call to Elohim City on 4/5/95, a day that he was believed to have been attempting to recruit a second conspirator to assist in the OKBOMB attack."

The FBI denied to federal judge Dale Kimball that any such documents existed. But someone had leaked the teletypes to Trentadue, and he put them before the judge along with an affidavit of their genuineness. Caught red-handed lying to a federal judge, the FBI was ordered to produce all documents Trentadue demanded. Judge Kimball gave the FBI until June 15, 2005, to deliver the incriminating records. Needless to say, the FBI doesn’t want to deliver and is attempting every possible dodge to escape obeying the judge’s order.

In his effort to uncover the DOJ’s coverup of his brother’s murder, Jesse Trentadue may have uncovered evidence of the FBI’s failure to prevent the bombing of the Murrah Building. It is bad enough that the murder of Kenneth Trentadue is covered over with many layers of DOJ perjury and the withholding and destruction of evidence. Evidence that the FBI was aware of McVeigh’s plan to bomb the Murrah Building and failed to prevent the deed would be an additional heavy blow to the prestige of federal law enforcement.

May 27, 2005

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Copyright © 2005 Creators Syndicate
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, what did the FBI find?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15312

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Naaah, no conspiracies here. Move along folks, just move along, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

lpl/nc
(Carol Howe? Who is she anyway? http://www.okcitytrial.com/content/dailytx/121097a/CarolHoweCrossExamination1.html )

Gung-Ho
June 20, 2005, 05:41 PM
I guess he will make some money with it though from those who like to imagine, in essence, that the government is an evil empire out to totally enslave the populace by whatever means.

Notice how he says that like its not true?

GEM
June 20, 2005, 05:45 PM
I think the government made up a story about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction so that we would invade Iraq.

I think we faked and/or provoled an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to get us into the Vietnam War.

I also think that our government is giving Saddam Hussein french toast for breakfast and unlimited Cheetos.

Or I think that all the weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria and we were so stupid we let them do that and now can't find them when we knew where they were in Iraq. I also think the WTC is still standing but are invisible.

My wife doesn't let me have French toast. :confused:

Beethoven
June 20, 2005, 05:46 PM
Notice how he says that like its not true?


He obviously believes that the world was created the day he was born.

He's also obviously never heard of, let alone studied this:


Main Entry: his·to·ry
Pronunciation: 'his-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Latin historia, from Greek, inquiry, history, from histOr, istOr knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know -- more at WIT

1 : TALE, STORY

2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c : an account of a patient's medical background d : an established record <a prisoner with a history of violence>

3 : a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events <medieval history>

4 a : events that form the subject matter of a history b : events of the past c : one that is finished or done for <the winning streak was history> <you're history> d : previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)

GRB
June 20, 2005, 05:47 PM
:neener: Thats cause I work for the governemnt - what would you expect from one of us guys who is part of the conspiracy (whoops did I write that outloud) - lol.

GRB
June 20, 2005, 05:49 PM
I am aware that if you tell a big lie long enough it can become the truth. So keep on spouting, maybe someday you guys will rewrite history to yur own satisfaction just often happens.

Byron Quick
June 20, 2005, 05:49 PM
Without tamping, shaping, or other techniques, a bomb blast will spend its energy in every direction instead of mostly the direction you want it to go.

From the pictures that I've seen of the location of the truck and comparing the damage of the federal building with buildings across the street which are apparently at least as close as the federal building...I would like for that to be explained.

Now, I'm not knowledgeabl in explosives...but to me the blast pattern means that the ANFO was placed in the truck in such a way to make a shaped charge. If so, this leads to another question: did either McVeigh or his convicted accomplice have the knowledge to make such a device? I assume that such knowledge would be fairly advanced. This assumption, if correct, leads to another possible question: If McVeigh wasn't capable of making the device...who was?

Now this is a house of cards probably. It could be that explosives damage things in unexpected directions when not tamped, shaped, or otherwise directed and I just never was told. It could be that if it was a giant shaped charge that any 10 year old could do it and once again...I missed the boat. It could be that McVeigh was a demolitions expert but I'd like to know the hows, whens, and wherefores.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinairy proof, huh? Think I'll go with beyond a reasonable doubt myself.

I've a few questions for the people who doubt the existence or possibility of existence of conspiracies: 1)Why did the government pass laws against conspiracies if they don't exist? 2)The people that the government has placed in prison after being convicted of conspiracy...do you maintain that the conspiracy laws are a government conspiracy to imprison innocent people?:D What about government epiphanies such as Watergate...do you maintain that these were not conspiracies?

I don't know what happened with Kennedy. Nor with Flight 800. Nor with the OKC bombing. But government explanations often have all the believability of 'the dog ate my homework.' Maybe the government just hires idiots to come up with the official explanations and all would be well if they upped the hiring requirements to include people who barely graduated high school with a D minus average.

Crosshair
June 20, 2005, 06:03 PM
http://gra.midco.net/5937/Flamewar.jpg

Baba Louie
June 20, 2005, 06:14 PM
Pretty simple structural analysis of the building's construction and why so much of the building went down...
http://orbita.starmedia.com/~martzsolis/THE%20OKLAHOMA%20CITY%20BOMBING.htm

Of course there are conspiracies... our founding fathers were a conspiracy against the King's men.

Was this a conspiring of ner-do-wells with gov't blessing? Nahhh. Did they (FBI/gov't) think they had some form of inside knowledge and ...oops... something evil this way came and we might have egg on our face unless we drive over the evidence with a bulldozer and remove the front door as fast as possible?

Whaddyacrazy? Ya really think they're gonna let themselves be suckered outta a fine gov't job by some... some... tax-paying schmuck of a citizen without some form of stonewalling or covering of derrieire. :rolleyes:

Would you?

McVeigh and Nichols were chumps with a grudge and killed innocent persons for political gain. Terrorists, criminals, schmucks. Said building could have been demo'd when empty and sent the same message. Killing more innocent kids just doesn't cut it any way you look at it, whether it's Janet Reno's crew or some ex-soldiers with a Ryder Truck and a perfect (and I mean PERFECT) homemade fertilzer/deisel fuel, planting an IED in OKC.

All I can say is it's a good thing that only McVeigh and Nichols were P.O.'d enough by Waco to become homegrown terrorists. Martial Law would suck.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 07:01 PM
We're supposed to believe that the president and foreign leaders conspired to attack a sovereign nation by lying about the presence of weaponry.

We're supposed to believe the president had advance knowledge of 9/11.

We're supposed to believe Haliburton is in the Middle East because they are butt-buddies with the president.

We're supposed to believe a dozen other wacky things when the subject is a nominally conservative politican. But THEN we're supposed to believe we are all tin-hat-wearing nuts when talking about an event that transpired during the most corrupt "administration" in history, enabled by one of the most out of control federal agencies in history. :rolleyes:

Muslims did it with the asistance of McVeigh. The truck was the delivery vehicle for the bombs found inside the building, not all of which went off. ATF among others knew it was coming, tried to stop it and missed. They did the best they could to "fix it" and Clinton made political hay out of the incident, perhaps without every knowing what really happened himself. Like I said, that's not even "conspiracy, that's just a bunch of thugs doing slightly above average CYA.

jefnvk
June 20, 2005, 07:07 PM
Please provide extraordinary evidence that McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building, alone or not

Ah, but you are the one that brought up the accusation. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your accusation, not me to prove you accusation is wrong.

rick_reno
June 20, 2005, 07:10 PM
Aliens blew up the building, they took the door that's been missing from the Waco incident too.

Crosshair
June 20, 2005, 07:10 PM
OK, In my post above I basicly said I wasn't going to post, but I can't resist. Here is a simple, 3 frame pic as to how I understand the building fell. (History channel did a special on it as well as my own research. Can't post any hard sources though, did it awhile ago.)

http://gra.midco.net/5937/OCBExplain.PNG

The Black line is the floors supported by the outdoor columns (Red) of the building. The Yellow box is the bomb. The building was made of reinforced concrete that we all know is very strong. Hoever there was minimal reinforcement ot the joint of the floor (Black) and the columns (Red). They where mainly held in place by gravity since the floors above held everything in place with minimal fastening to keep them there. The same thing happens in you're house. In mine, the vertical wood support columns running down the middle of the basement are held in place with nothing more than a few small bolts, just enough to keep a bump from knocking them out.

If I wanted to, I could take a sledgehammer and probably shear the bolts then knock the wood columns out, but only after I had taken the vertical load off of it. That is how it (most likely) happened in Oklahoma City. The bomb blast lifted the front of the building just enough to knock the support columns out of place. Anything holding the two together was not built to take this much force. A split second later after the blast, the upper floors came back down and the columns where out of place and unable to take the load, they collapsed. The result was that any part of the structure that relied on those columns (Or become overloaded due to their absence.) collapsed while the rest of the building remained standing. This also explains why surrounding buildings recieved relativly minor damage. Mostly limited to broken windows and damage from flying debris. It also explains why the building seemed to collapse into the blast and not away from it, since the collapse happened after the blast, not as a direct result of it.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 07:14 PM
Cop out. The point was there is no extraordinary evidence on either side. At least not that we have gotten yet.

BTW, another point, the government did not cite a reason for refusing to release the tapes in the last request denial I heard about. It's always good to keep in mind that "what the law says" has little control over what the government does. That's because in the end you aren't going to do a thing about it.

rbernie
June 20, 2005, 07:34 PM
To bring down a building of that construction requires something along the lines of semtex, TNT, dynamite, or C4.Bullpap. Nobody short of a structural engineer with access to the blueprints and construction records, coupled with an team of experts in detonation-to-deflagration energetic material studies, could make such an assertation. This I know from personal experience, and NOBODY making these claims vis-a-vis ANFO/OK City has the credentials needed to be taken seriously.

The fun part of conspiracies is that they only work in a vacuum, and of course the best consipracies are the ones that can't be disproved any more than they can be proved. But this is NOT EVEN a good consiracy. Outside of the tinfoil hat brigade on Internet forums, there are oodles of folks (many of whom I know) who've been involved in the investigation and frankly you just can't fool THAT MANY people for that long.

Should we question authority? Absolutely. Should we believe everything we're told without critical thought? Not hardly. But knowing the professionalism of many of the men and women who helped put together these investigations, I actually find it vaguely insulting that any ol' yahoo with an agenda and axe to grind can suggest that they're all collectively flat out LYING...

Azrael256
June 20, 2005, 07:39 PM
I interned at the memorial. I picked up a few tidbits that made this whole ANFO in a ryder truck not sync up.

First off, I studied the 4' blow-up (no pun intended) of the convenience store security camera photo of the truck. The official estimated weight of explosive is between 4,000-6,800 pounds. IIRC, the max weight on that particular truck is 11,000. The suspension appeared to be very near the top of its travel. Either the bomb was some higher-grade explosive, which would indicate something larger than the two men charged with the bombing (RDX is really hard to cook up in significant batches in the bathtub), or something else took down the building. It is worth noting that the security camera shot is the only photo that was known to be out in the public at the time I worked there. The museum director knew of no other image that had been released.

The blast did not move the way everybody thinks it did. I have right here, free for the asking, a damage assessment of the blast area. I do not know just who put it together, as there is no identification in the image, but it makes it very clear that the main force of the blast went out in an arc of less than 180 degrees. You might be surprised as to which direction the arc faces.

The vast quantity of broken glass from the Murrah building, some of which I handled personally, was pristine. The museum had not washed it. It came into their posession only after it had been cleaned. I don't know just what the official line was on the washing of the glass (as well as all the other chunks of the building that the museum holds), but it would make chemical analysis pretty difficult.

Something doesn't quite add up.

Now for the other side of the story:
The news tapes which aired the early explanation of Islamic terrorists were not destroyed. At least one of them (I don't recall which network, but it was one of the big 3) is in the posession of the memorial museum. I have laid my grubby little hands on it. I have watched it, and it contains nothing more than speculation.

The damage to the building was not as "structural" as many engineers evidently believe. I have several photographs that show structural members in relatively good condition. The floors have clearly been stripped right out by the blast, but the vertical columns are almost intact. In fact, the structural members on the immediate edge of the collapsed area prevented further collapse when they took the load shift. There are vertical members that withstood the forces right at the edge of the collapsed zone.

The distance between the buildings is, in fact, quite significant in the analysis. I have a photo, again, just ask, which shows the next closest building suffering significant damage on its exposed side, with the level of damage tapering off over about 60'. It goes from complete structural collapse at one end to pretty serious but still standing at the other. This was not some sort of "inside job" with professional demolition types laying charges the night before. If it was, they hadn't read even the simplest texts on demolition.

My analysis is thus: The building was brought down by a truck bomb containing something other than ANFO that was built by or with the help of somebody other than McVeigh and Nichols. Other than that, I dunno.

cuchulainn
June 20, 2005, 07:44 PM
BTW, another point, the government did not cite a reason for refusing to release the tapes in the last request denial I heard about I call B.S. on whoever told you that. (No offense directed at you :) ). Or someone is making a mistake in claiming that.

That just doesn't ring true. I've seen scores of FoIA denials. Each one was a form letter in which the government always -- ALWAYS -- cited one of the 10 reasons (as they are required to do by law).

A government agency (especially one bent on coverup) would be breathtakingly stupid to openly break the law and issue a FoIA denial without giving a reason. They'd open themselves to further scrutiny by groups like this: http://www.rcfp.org/

I would love to see the denial letter the goverment sent. In fact, I'd love to see the whole paper trail.

However -- no offense -- I'm really doubting the truth of the FoIA denial story, so I'm doubting that the denial letter and the rest of the paper trail exist.

It sounds fishy to anyone who's dealt with FoIA requests.

Geeze, I hate defending the feds, but this simply sounds fishy to me.

stevelyn
June 20, 2005, 08:28 PM
Sometime back, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE published a series of investigative reports by James Pate on the OKC bombing. Although I'm convinced Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved, I don't believe they were acting alone. They couldn't have planned it and carried out all the intelligence and preparations by themselves. Why haven't others been implicated in this crime? Why was OKC chosen and not some other city?
I also believe the alphabet agencies who were conspicuously absent that morning had prior knowledge of something happening and allowed events proceed.
I'm also having a hard time believing one truck bomb caused all the damage to the Murrah Building and DIDN'T cause similar damage to other buildings nearby or knock over utility poles.
Now(adjusting tinfoil beenie) just how fast do you think it would take to research and write the anti-terror legislation that was introduced to Congress shortly after the OKC bombing? Methinks the anti-terror bill, just like the PATRIOT Act, had been pre-written and shelved until an event occured which warranted blowing the dust off of it and sending it to Congress.
There are too many govt approved explainations that don't quite make it past my BS meter.

Please provide extraordinary evidence McVeigh blew up the Murrah building, alone or not.

McVeigh never denied he blew up the building. But then of course the govt had us all convinced that Richard Jewell was responsible for the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 08:31 PM
I call B.S. on whoever told you that. (No offense directed at you ).

You can be as offensive as you want, I just get pissed then I get over it. :)

The actual documents were posted online. They were linked in one of the several threads that have batted this subject around here, on TFL, on FC and a couple other boards that have a fair amount of member overlap. Whether they are still up or not is anyone's guess since, like I said before, I have had zip luck finding the TFL threads.

The reason this stuck in my mind though was because the government IS supposed to provide a legitimate explanation of a refusal but yet if they choose not to there is (or wasn't anyway) no recourse. Get a lawyer and sue, I guess. As for getting into hot water over it, I suppose. If anyone actually takes an interest in your quest. There's one of the reasons my dad eventually abandoned a government career: Too much incompetence masquerading as control was his term. And when it came down to blowing the whistle on it it would always be "your word against his", the winner being the guy or group with the best contacts or who could get the most media/public sympathy, truth be damned.

That's also why I don't necessarily put a lot of waeight in "conspiracy" labels. It seems "conspiracy" is always attached to whatever the government says did not happen. So the families at Mena are conspiracists, even though they were there. Flight 800 is a conspiracy, even though nothing adds up. Foster's murder is a conspiracy, even though the official story is impossible. Same here, it's just a matter of who gets the best media support and the alternative view becomes the conspiracy theory.

Again, when it comes down to it what are you going to do about it? Go ahead, get a lawyer, talk to the media...you fruitcake. :neener:

Bullpap. Nobody short of a structural engineer with access to the blueprints and construction records, coupled with an team of experts in detonation-to-deflagration energetic material studies, could make such an assertation. This I know from personal experience, and NOBODY making these claims vis-a-vis ANFO/OK City has the credentials needed to be taken seriously.

Actually if IIRC, and time has certainly passed since this was a regular discussion, every legitimate engineer came to the same/similar conclusion, disputing the government's conclusion, except the engineering firm the government went with. But the government has the best publicity machine so who's the Tin-Hatter? :)

beerslurpy
June 20, 2005, 08:57 PM
He didnt just use ANFO, he put it inside a container that he put under about 5 atmospheres of pressure. Under these conditions, ANFO goes from being a low explosive to being a high explosive. It was a more sophisticated device than the MSM tells you and certainly powerful enough to do what it did.

ANFO is only weaksauce at STP. Under higher than normal pressure it is very potent. I think he used pure oxygen as the pressurizing gas, though I am not sure.

SIOP
June 20, 2005, 09:32 PM
Bullpap. Nobody short of a structural engineer with access to the blueprints and construction records, coupled with an team of experts in detonation-to-deflagration energetic material studies, could make such an assertation. This I know from personal experience, and NOBODY making these claims vis-a-vis ANFO/OK City has the credentials needed to be taken seriously.


Better do a web search for Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, retired), a military explosives expert. He's been making those claims since the bombing, but you won't hear his side from the government or their orchestrated media outlets.

Crosshair
June 20, 2005, 09:59 PM
beerslurpy

I think he used pure oxygen as the pressurizing gas, though I am not sure.

Don't know if he used pure oxygen or not. He might have used NOS though. Probably easier for the average Joe to get in large quantities and the small ammount of sulfur they put into it (So people don't huff it.) shouldn't hurt the bomb. Either one would have worked, both are excellent oxidizers.

yucaipa
June 20, 2005, 10:19 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/yucaipa/we-compare.gif


I knew I shouldn't have posted this on the INTERNET, the black helicopters are landing in my yard as I type............


wait a minute the little bastards are only 4 ft tall, and their green
They say I can live if I give them the serial #'s to all my bullets. :neener:

beerslurpy
June 20, 2005, 10:45 PM
Actually I dont think the gas itself matters, only that the reactants not be able to relieve energy by expanding. I think they could have used helium and it would have worked. Not 100 percent sure.

Ah I looked it up on wikipedia. They dont mention his use of the gas, but he used nitromethane instead of diesel fuel which would certainly make it more powerful than regular fuel since it has the oxidant as part of the fuel molecule.

Third_Rail
June 20, 2005, 10:52 PM
but to me the blast pattern means that the ANFO was placed in the truck in such a way to make a shaped charge. If so, this leads to another question: did either McVeigh or his convicted accomplice have the knowledge to make such a device? I assume that such knowledge would be fairly advanced. This assumption, if correct, leads to another possible question: If McVeigh wasn't capable of making the device...who was?


Well, I think more along the lines of: AN/FO wasn't the only thing used, if at all. Shaped charges are very basic knowledge for anyone even interested in explosives - he knew how to make them. He knew how to make more powerful explosives, too - he needed a primary to set off the AN/FO, and a booster charge to make it fully det. I honestly think that there was more than one charge, with the AN/FO in the truck simply being the "distraction", if you will.


So, basically, your assumption was/is incorrect. Shaped charges are simple.

RevDisk
June 21, 2005, 12:04 AM
From what I've read ANFO is a "low" high explosive. And large amounts of it tend to not all blow up. Besides did anyone here where they supposedly mixed all this stuff up? In the back of a moving van in a park? Damm the fumes alone would have killed them.

Erm. Kinda, yes. Kinda, no. All ANFO is not equal. ANFO has a book value of 2500 M/S Min. This is gonna take a bit to explain. Bare with me, please.

A book definition of the stats on ANFO is based off 94.3% prous prilled ammonium nitrate, 5.7% fuel oil. (By weight, not volume) Properly and evenly mixed, with no impurities. ANFO has a book weight of circa 840 kilos per meter cubed. (Yea, it's heavy.)

Now, let's get out of the lab and in the real world.

AN is not water resistant, and that very much negatively effects the explosive properties as well. It soaks moisture out of the air.

There is a BIG difference between explosive (blasting-grade) AN prills and fertilizer prills. Fertilizer prills are about 1/5th air. This shaping is very important when calculating explosive energy released. In simpliest terms, these air pockets screw with the blast wave making it uneven. Makes shaping the explosive very very difficult.

In very large amounts, it's not easy to set off ANFO evenly. Tis why AN comes in 25 or 50 kilo plastic sacks. AN prills generally are 1300 kilos per meter cubed, to give you a visual reference. You can blow up large amounts of ANFO easy enough. Setting it off evenly in a controlled manner is a headache. Even explosion of the explosive material is critical for shaped charges. Hence why the military uses RDX for almost all forms of explosives.

In order to make a shaped change out of ANFO, you'd get to make many packets of small amounts of ANFO and set them off in perfect sequence and timing. Doing this without access to professional demo accessories would not be easy. Possible, but requiring a lot of skill, knowledge and experience. You can set off ANFO with ditching TNT, but it won't be timely enough for a shaped charge effect resulting in an uneven blast.



Gung-Ho, AN/FO is easy to mix, easy to make. It DOES detonate better in larger amounts (over, say, 400 grams) than in smaller amounts. This is all in the research I've done.

Yes, ANFO is easy to mix and easy to make. But to make it effective and get the most boom, it's not so easy. You can take 19/20th's AN fertilizer prills and 1/20th diesel, pour in a barrel, stir, and set off with ditching dynomite. It will not be effective, and it will the majority of the energy will go straight up or get wasted in hot spots due to inconsistency in the mix.

If you pardon the poor analogy, you're comparing a Pinto (redneck stump removing ANFO) and a Porsche (mining ANFO). Yes, a Pinto and a Porsche both have four wheels, an internal combustion engine, etc. But there is still a vast difference in performance even if the basic components are conceptionally similiar.


He didnt just use ANFO, he put it inside a container that he put under about 5 atmospheres of pressure. Under these conditions, ANFO goes from being a low explosive to being a high explosive. It was a more sophisticated device than the MSM tells you and certainly powerful enough to do what it did.

Even with additives, turning large amounts of ANFO into a shaped charge ain't easy. Pressurizing ANFO with pure oxygen is a sure way to get water contamination in the mix unless added immediately prior to going boom.

You're telling me an untrained grunt managed to properly mix ANFO (with less than optimal components, mind you) into small containers, with some jury rigged pressurization system and an incredibly accuracy detonation scheme that surpasses the ability of professional demo equipment?

Again, without tamping or shaping, the blast would have gone in every direction, with the majority of the energy going straight up.


Now, I'm not knowledgeabl in explosives...but to me the blast pattern means that the ANFO was placed in the truck in such a way to make a shaped charge. If so, this leads to another question: did either McVeigh or his convicted accomplice have the knowledge to make such a device? I assume that such knowledge would be fairly advanced. This assumption, if correct, leads to another possible question: If McVeigh wasn't capable of making the device...who was?

It is possible to make such an explosive. Heck, I could do it. If I had a staff of a bunch of explosive experts, bunch of physics geeks and access to a Cray supercomputer to crunch the numbers. Oh yea, don't forget access to master electricians to make me the detonating equipment that's capable of timed sequences accurate to a couple microseconds.

This might sound odd, but the explosives are not as important as the detonating material and methods. Kinda like an implosion detonated nuke. Having a lump of uranium won't do you much good. You need a lot of very advanced electrical components to properly sequence the explosion in order for that lump of uranium to do its thing.

An uneven explosion in a very large ANFO explosive would cause the bomb to start destroying itself before the complete explosion has taken place. Basically, it'd rip itself apart, sending blast waves in different directions. It'd still do damage, but far far less than the optimal efficiency.


From the pictures that I've seen of the location of the truck and comparing the damage of the federal building with buildings across the street which are apparently at least as close as the federal building...I would like for that to be explained.

If I was shown the photos and not the official news reports or press releases, I'd say it was RDX based explosion. I decline to comment on my thoughts on the placement of the explosives.


Well, I think more along the lines of: AN/FO wasn't the only thing used, if at all. Shaped charges are very basic knowledge for anyone even interested in explosives - he knew how to make them. He knew how to make more powerful explosives, too - he needed a primary to set off the AN/FO, and a booster charge to make it fully det. I honestly think that there was more than one charge, with the AN/FO in the truck simply being the "distraction", if you will.


So, basically, your assumption was/is incorrect. Shaped charges are simple.

According to all official releases, ANFO was the only explosive used. Unless a booster product was used, such as SuperAN or MAGNAFRAC, I'm having a hard time imaging why you'd mix other explosives into ANFO. Other than detonating material, of course, which is hardly mixed into ANFO. I think I am misunderstaning your first paragraph, could you please clarify it?

Shaped charges are simple in concept. Much harder when you get into very large explosions. Making a properly-timed shaped charge with ANFO is NOT easy. Especially when you lack access to professional demo equipment.




I do not know who bombed OKC and I am only commenting on the supposed use of ANFO in a truck bomb. I don't know all the details of the case, but I know the ANFO details given publically are BS. I think I proved my point. I'd like to see someone poke holes in anything I've written about the explosives. I might have screwed up, and I might be missing something. Instead of tossing around tin foil, do some research and try to prove me wrong. I'd gladly appreciate being proved wrong and welcome anyone to try.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 12:11 AM
The force of the explosion and the "direction" also reminds me of another (absurd) key bit of government evidence. Supposedly they found the rear axle of the Ryder truck several blocks away. THEN they identified the truck by the axle... :rolleyes:

OK, so a charge that blows out and upwards from the van and creates a(ridiculously small) crater but the most solid piece of steel in direct proximity, rather than being drivin into the ground, is tossed hundred of feet in the air and in distance AND remains intact enough they can identify the truck it came from.

The entire claim is unadulterated horsecrap.

Crosshair
June 21, 2005, 12:51 AM
2nd Amendment

Ever see metal bounce, depending on the type, it will bounce to a limited degree. Throw it down with enough force and it will bounce. It is very possible that the axle did this, there are other way's as well. Again, read my post on the previous page. The collapse (most likely) happened because the building design didn't take into consideration the effects of a bomb blast. McVeigh just got lucky in that the bomb hit the buildings achilles heel, and was thus able to bring it down.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 12:55 AM
Yeah, I've seen metal bounce. Problem is even if I accept that idea(several hundred yards?) there's nothing on a 1 ton truck axle to link it to the vehicle from which it came. I've had several vehicles over the years with title/VIN problems and none of them could ever be cleared by info from the rear end.

Cosmoline
June 21, 2005, 01:25 AM
So the feds blew up their own building, and killed their own people, with special detonation charges? Come on. I dislike the feds pretty strongly, but why the devil would they want to blow themselves up? The folks advocating this theory seem to be in the same camp as the ones who claim the DOD bombed itself on 9/11. Some folks will simply never accept reality.

Third_Rail
June 21, 2005, 02:09 AM
Hm, a thought - perhaps he used something to even out the OB? Even then, I think all the experienced (re: explosives) people on this board agree that any AN/FO mix wouldn't be powerful enough.


I think I am misunderstaning your first paragraph, could you please clarify it?

Absolutely - I think he used a booster charge to make the AN/FO fully det, as much of the, erm, "amature" chemistry texts say is a wise move, and as research has show to be beneficial re: full detonation. Maybe my mind is still thinking too small amounts?


A question - did he ever get his hands on the RDX detcord, or did he end up improvising with a piece of tubing and acetone peroxide? If he used the real detcord, no booster needed IIRC, but if he used AP cord, he'd have needed a booster to get the AN/FO to reliably det.

Good point on AN being hygroscopic, though. Hadn't thought about


Shaped charges are simple in concept. Much harder when you get into very large explosions. Making a properly-timed shaped charge with ANFO is NOT easy. Especially when you lack access to professional demo equipment.

I think we have differing definitions on "large" explosions. I think of large as 250-1000 grams, anything over 1kg being really really big (to me). Shaped charges never presented a problem to me, though I could see where the AN/FO would have serious problems propagating the shockwave just so.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 09:22 AM
The reason this stuck in my mind though was because the government IS supposed to provide a legitimate explanation of a refusal but yet if they choose not to there is (or wasn't anyway) no recourse. Get a lawyer and sue, I guess. As for getting into hot water over it, I suppose. If anyone actually takes an interest in your quest. Yes, there is (and always has been) legal recourse, both administratively and in court. And there are groups who would jump at the chance to go at the government for being stupid enough to deny an FoIA request without giving a reason. It wouldn't matter how fruity the cause ... kind of like the ACLU backing the Nazis in Skokie.

The press and lawyers love FoIA. In many cases, it's their bread and butter. They'd attack a case that would set a precedent of allowing the government to issue a denial-sans-reason faster than you could shake a stick at Dan Rather. Such a precedent would gut FoIA of its effectiveness, so they would fear and hate it. I can think of few things that would get the press and lawyers to rally around you faster. For the press, FoIA is nearly as hallowed as the 1st Amendment.

I'd certainly believe that the goverment would issue a bogus reason like "national security" or "open law enforcement investigation." They likely could win that stand no matter how bogus, given the situation.

But be stupid enough to not give a reason? Nope. Wouldn't happen.

Yep, someone is either feeding you B.S. or you/they misunderstood what happened.

I'd love to see those letters, but alas, they seem to have evaporated like swamp gas into the internet-ether if they ever existed at all.

And when it came down to blowing the whistle on it it would always be "your word against his", the winner being the guy or group with the best contacts or who could get the most media/public sympathy, truth be damned. In this case, you'd have evidence -- a piece of paper on which the government broke the law. As for press sympathy, as I said above, the press would salivate at the chance to catch the government in such a flagrant violation of FoIA. It would be like fish in a barrel for them, speaking of fishy.

Boats
June 21, 2005, 09:42 AM
It wasn't an ANFO bomb?

Maybe it was a directed energy weapon?

http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/1814/1157/lo/ind1.jpg

http://www.jedisaber.com/SW/wallpaper/death%20star%20firing.jpg

This site really needs a tin foil smiley.

auschip
June 21, 2005, 09:50 AM
This site really needs a tin foil smiley.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbsmiley.gif

Like this one?

richyoung
June 21, 2005, 09:50 AM
So the feds blew up their own building, and killed their own people, with special detonation charges? Come on. I dislike the feds pretty strongly, but why the devil would they want to blow themselves up? The folks advocating this theory seem to be in the same camp as the ones who claim the DOD bombed itself on 9/11. Some folks will simply never accept reality.


Plain simple fact - the B3 support column was compromised - the B4 and B5 columns weren't. If the building was brought down ONLY by an ANFO bomb in the ryder truck, you are now in the realm of majic - because it COULDN'T happen that way. Add in the call logs and reports of additional explosives removed from the wreckage, and it's pretty obvious that cutting charges were placed on critical support columns - ANFO, even when juiced with nitro or aluminum powder, simply doesn't generate enough PSI at those distances to break those things. Do I think the Feds did it? Not necessarily - I think they had an under-cover agent or sting operation going on that either was compromised, or not monitored closely enough, and that if the truth came out it would be embarassing to the BATF. It's still quite strange though, when you have World Trade Center 7 being brought down by demo charges, as admitted by the owner on PBS. Either that building was pre-wired, or someone did three weeks worth of demo calculations and work in a couple of hours...in a building that is on fire!

RevDisk
June 21, 2005, 10:36 AM
Absolutely - I think he used a booster charge to make the AN/FO fully det, as much of the, erm, "amature" chemistry texts say is a wise move, and as research has show to be beneficial re: full detonation. Maybe my mind is still thinking too small amounts?

You mean doping the ANFO with other "stuff" to get a bigger boom? Yep, happens all the time. Those two commercial products I meantioned are specifically designed to be added to ANFO for mining explosives.

However, even though it increases the book value of the boom, all those other factors I meantioned still apply. Plus, there's only so much those extra products will do to enhance the boom.


A question - did he ever get his hands on the RDX detcord, or did he end up improvising with a piece of tubing and acetone peroxide? If he used the real detcord, no booster needed IIRC, but if he used AP cord, he'd have needed a booster to get the AN/FO to reliably det.

Good point on AN being hygroscopic, though. Hadn't thought about

Not sure. Detcord is PETN, by the way. Detcord also will not set off any sizable amounts of ANFO by itself. Most assuredly it will not set off homemade ANFO brews in quantity. Most people run the detcord to a "small" TNT charge, which in turn actually sets off the ANFO.

Yea, AN just sucks water straight out of the air.


I think we have differing definitions on "large" explosions. I think of large as 250-1000 grams, anything over 1kg being really really big (to me). Shaped charges never presented a problem to me, though I could see where the AN/FO would have serious problems propagating the shockwave just so.

I'm talking between tens and hundreds of kilos. Yep, for small charges, shaping is easy. Bigger you go, harder it gets.



So the feds blew up their own building, and killed their own people, with special detonation charges? Come on. I dislike the feds pretty strongly, but why the devil would they want to blow themselves up? The folks advocating this theory seem to be in the same camp as the ones who claim the DOD bombed itself on 9/11. Some folks will simply never accept reality.

I personally never said the feds blew up their own building. I'm merely saying their official explaination on the explosives is bunk. I'd like to see someone prove me wrong in that regard, but from my view, something is fishy.

The cries of "Tin foil! Tin foil!" without justification of evidence do get old.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 10:45 AM
So the feds blew up their own building, and killed their own people...

I think this has been adressed several times and once again makes me ask the question: Why do people who don't care to read a debate insist on participating in a debate?

thereisnospoon
June 21, 2005, 10:51 AM
I think it is interesting that we of the tin-foil-hat are immediately dismissed because we can't produce airtight, reproducable evidence, yet many people are convicted each year on cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, such as the Scott Peterson case (BTW I for one think all the dots connectd rather nicely, and that he was guilty as the hot place).

Now was that a conpiracy or was it a case of connecting dots that only create a picture when put together in a certain light and looked at with your head tilted just right???

AS easy as it is to dismiss some of the alien crap and so on, one musy admitt that for years the debate raged about JFK until finally the official Warren report was debunked and a new investigation revealed that official Warren report was flawed...remember the "Pristine bullet" that was supposed to have passed through both the President and then the Senator or Governor or whoever, then make a left turn and hit the Gov again and still be found on the gourney in almost like new condition....no hint of conspiracy there.... ;).

So you see, some of our ditrust of the .gov comes from the .gov's own actions. Do you fault us for that? Are we nuts because we can see the dots connecting with the proper light and tilt? I think not...

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 11:15 AM
I think it is interesting that we of the tin-foil-hat are immediately dismissed because we can't produce airtight, reproducable evidence, yet many people are convicted each year on cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, such as the Scott Peterson case You're assuming (wrongly in my case) that your critics argree with the cases that involved conviction on circumstantial evidence -- which is nothing but a red herring to deflect criticism that you fail to support your claims.

Besides, we're not really asking for airtight arguments -- just something that holds air better than a gauze balloon. ;)

GEM
June 21, 2005, 11:46 AM
So is GWB part of the conspiracy not to investigate this?

What alien or international forces are keeping him from doing this?

:scrutiny:

Is Dick Cheney controlling him to suppress this information?

:what:

Does Satan control the minds of the GOP?

:evil:

The only conclusion must be that Bush is mind controlled, an idiot or a traitor

:eek:

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 11:49 AM
And another one weighs in with some silly alien comments. Better than dealing with the subject matter, I suppose. But to adress this silly Bush question that has now popped up several times: Do we see Shrub pushing for a Waco investigation? A Peltier investigation? A Ruby Ridge investigation? A Vince Foster investigation? A Flight 800 investigation? A {insert issue of choice here} investigation?

No. Presidents don't do this. So the purpose of bringing it up repeatedly would be? Oh, yes, distracting from the actual issue. Sorry. Carry on...

thereisnospoon
June 21, 2005, 12:02 PM
I am very sorry, apparently you missed that whole section of my post where i produced a very real case of .Gov tomfoolery.

Are you saying you really believe that that one bullet did it all and was found on that gurney? Check this out

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ford.html

Although this link could be a conspiracy page, the story is Associated Press.

Why didn't you respond to that? I am not asking you to out in the tin foil, only asking IF you don't think that is a case where the .gov for whatever reason tried to mislead the public about the facts of the case.

Please be so kind as to answer, so you are not dismessed as a drive-by poster, you know someone who only addresses the part of the post they want to...

rock jock
June 21, 2005, 12:11 PM
Better than dealing with the subject matter, I suppose.
The subject matter is silly.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 12:12 PM
Your (unsupportable) opinion. Thx for playing. :D

thereisnospoon
June 21, 2005, 12:19 PM
Is it really silly to ask if the .gov folks are misrepresenting the facts of certain events that involve public interest?

I guess its silly to monitor our representatives and the way they vote on 2A issues also, huh? Wht they tell the truth all the time, so we should just believe John Kerry when he says he supports the 2A. after all I saw all those pictures of him hunting and everything.

Again, no one seems to want to answer the question; is it fair for the .gov to lie to the people, even in the name of "National Security" whatever that is?

The Warren Report is my "proof" that these things do happen. That doesn't mean in all cases in all things, but that they are capable. Or can you give an alternate explanation as to why the Warren Report was altered and later debunked?

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 12:21 PM
When their ideas get laughed at, most people's first reaction is to dismiss the laughter as proof of closed minds. They rarely stop to consider that there might be a valid reason for the laughter. In their own way, they're being just as closed minded as they think the laughers are being.

But I understand how it could be hard to take an honest assessment of your theories when your ego's been pricked by pointing fingers and laughter. No, the human response (you see it from the playground to the boardroom) is to dig in and interpret the laughter as proof that you're the only "open mind" in the conversation ... but the truth is that laughter doesn't prove that.

Rather, it's simply proof that people, lots of them, find the ideas laughable. Nothing more. Nothing less. A truly open minded person would see that as a need to take a hard, honest look at his ideas -- or at least at the way he presents them.

There was a pop song about 25 years ago with the line, "She's so open minded that her brain leaked out." I wish I could remember the artist and title. Oh well. No big deal.

thereisnospoon
June 21, 2005, 12:25 PM
So open up your mind and answer the question....

Hawkmoon
June 21, 2005, 12:28 PM
To those who steadfastly refuse to even entertain the possibility that the official explanation might be less than 100% credible, and who demand hard evidence even in the irrefutable fact that that same government controls whatever evidence might remain, I would remind you of a very old axiom: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In other words, just because the "conspiracy theorists" can't prove their point conclusively does not demonstrate that they are wrong or that it could not have happened that way. ALL it demonstrates is that they don't have proof.

Personally, I think there are enough unresolved questions to entertain the possibility that they are correct.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 12:32 PM
So open up your mind and answer the question.... OK, I'll answer the question: It is unfair for the .gov to lie to the people, even in the name of "National Security" whatever that is.

What does that have to do with whether your theories are:
A) valid
B) presented in a convincing matter?

If I had answered the opposite, would that magically render your theories more valid or your presentation more convincing? No? Then what's your point? I certainly hope you aren't attempting to draw a false dichotomy that people either accept your theories or they believe government coverup is OK.

But I'll assume you realize that it's perfectly logical for people to reject your ideas but still dislike government coverups.

So, again, what's the point of that question?

thereisnospoon
June 21, 2005, 12:36 PM
Sorry for the confusion the question I would like to see answered is this...(see post #104)

Do you believe the example given (i.e. the Kennedy Assassination and subsuquent Warren Report) support the theory that at times the .gov may misrepresent facts in the "Interest of National or public security"

That was the original question I wanted someone from the opposing view point to answer. Centac or Poosibly yourself kept asking for proof, so I provided what I thought was a convicing piece of evidence, yet neither has responded to my question.

As I said, i don't seee conspiracies eveywhere, just where the dots connect and the head is tilted just right.

inalso don't believe that someone is "closed-minded" just because they don't agree with me. I am only very interested to see what your thoughts are on this matter and I thought part of debate was dissent...

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 12:49 PM
Do you believe the example given (i.e. the Kennedy Assassination and subsuquent Warren Report) support the theory that at times the .gov may misrepresent facts in the "Interest of National or public security" Well, I -- and probably everyone who's posted here -- think that to be true regardless of whether your specific example shows it to be true.

Governments sometimes lie to the people. That's not at issue -- and if you think it is, I think you're seriously misinterpreting your critics.

thereisnospoon
June 21, 2005, 12:59 PM
O.k., so I have misinterpreted my critics. I am sorry, but I was trying to establish first that my "critics" ( I hope we are still brothers-in-arms even though we may disagree about soemthing) did or did not believe the .gov was capable of cover up. You have finaly answered that question in the affirmative.

Second, then; If it is not only plausable, but probable, based on the conflicting reports of OK city in the early stages (i.e.
"middle eastern john doe" and "other explosive devices", that the .gov is withholding the video, which in most people's minds would clear the air, to cover something up?

what that may be, I have no earthly, only that it stinks...

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 01:10 PM
If it is not only plausable, but probable, based on the conflicting reports of OK city in the early stages (i.e. "middle eastern john doe" and "other explosive devices", that the .gov is withholding the video, which in most people's minds would clear the air, to cover something up?

Well, I'd still like to see the reason the government gave for denying the FoIA request (if there actualy was a request denied .. I have my doubts). So far, we've got:

A) The goverment gave no reason (absurd).

B) The FoIA paper trail was posted somewhere, but golly, now we can't find it.

C) My independent internet search for the FoIA paper trail finds nothing. You'd think that it would be somewhere if it existed.

Thus, we cannot judge whether the FoIA denial is evidence of anything. In fact, I'm seriously doubting whether it exists.

As for conflicting reports (as I said earlier) at-the-scene reports of chaos are, well, notoriously chaotic. The fact that subsequent analysis is different doesn't mean much to me. Sorry.

I recall numerous news report -- complete with a video interview of a guy in the hospital -- a few days after 9/11 that claimed the guy somehow had "ridden" the rubble down X-dozen floors and survived. But lo and behold, not only do we no longer hear about that guy, we're told it never happened.

Sorry, I don't see a coverup in that either.

thereisnospoon
June 21, 2005, 01:28 PM
Granted, reports early in an event like the Murrah bombing or 9/11 are fast and furious in our 24/7/365 news world, and sometimes very inaccurate.

As to the FoIA, I must defer to 2ndAmendment on that issue as I did not post that information. However, it seems to mean the .gov folks know that there is a ton of speculation about the OKC Bombing, yet refuse to release the video that would prove their case. Centac seems to think it was in deference to the victims families, but my question about the families of the Waco victims went unanswered...

I remeber seeing a movie once with Warren Beatty, in which he played some type of reporter who was investigating a number of murders of high ramking .gov types. He stumbled onto the "conspiracy" and was in turn turned into one of the killers, because he "knew too much". The movie opened and closed with the same scene, the "Official" report of the murders, carried out by a lone crazed gunman, who always had three names., like Lee Harvey Oswald. I can't remember the name of the movie (someone help me out here...), but that has always left me chilled. I know its a movie, but after all "Art imitates life" is an axiom for a reason.

Anyway, thank you for the discourse, I find it both stimulating and informative.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 01:38 PM
However, it seems to mean the .gov folks know that there is a ton of speculation about the OKC Bombing, yet refuse to release the video that would prove their case. We don't know why they've refused -- if in fact they have refused (I have doubts given the lack of paper trail and the absurd claim that they gave no reason).

Thus we don't know whether the alleged refusal points to anything. Maybe they did use the privacy reason (as Centac speculates) -- which might or might not be bogus. Maybe they used the "ongoing legal investigation" -- which would be legitimate if there's still an open case on the matter (Is there?)

But we don't know.

What we do know is that one person is claiming that another person claimed to have a FoIA denied without a reason given. The alleged lack of reason alone is fishy enough to raise my doubts about the whole matter.

Sindawe
June 21, 2005, 01:56 PM
I remeber seeing a movie once with Warren Beatty, in which he played some type of reporter who was investigating a number of murders of high ramking .gov types. He stumbled onto the "conspiracy" and was in turn turned into one of the killers, because he "knew too much". The movie opened and closed with the same scene, the "Official" report of the murders, carried out by a lone crazed gunman, who always had three names., like Lee Harvey Oswald. I can't remember the name of the movie (someone help me out here...), but that has always left me chilled. I know its a movie, but after all "Art imitates life" is an axiom for a reason. The Parallax View (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071970/). The Internet Movie Database is your friend.

Sungun09
June 21, 2005, 01:59 PM
I understand your points regarding "show me the " evidence. Let me point out it's up to us as individuals to educate ourselves to some degree regarding the technicalities of each situation. I don't think we've been given brains to sit on our butts, drink Buds, MGD or whatever, watch Nascar, the NBA, and simply believe what we are told at face value.

For those of you who don't think this government is going to lie to us, consider this, human nature is consistent from country to country and societys. People are people. The only thing that keeps us who we are is the Constitution and the second amendment in particular. Otherwise please explain the Reichstag fire and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Hmmm, maybe the Northwoods document as well. All events that are generally accepted as being setups by governments.

regards all

CentralTexas
June 21, 2005, 02:05 PM
this man, clear to everyone now? ;)
CT

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 02:05 PM
For those of you who don't think this government is going to lie to us, consider this, Once again, the question of whether the government might lie to us is not at issue.

I find it telling that so many take people's doubt about these theories as evidence of a naive refusal to consider that government coverup and lies, might exists anywhere, anytime.

Hurt egos also often lead to false dichotomies. Why? False dichotomies are useful in setting up strawmen, the destruction of which are good salves for hurt egos.

thereisnospoon
June 21, 2005, 02:35 PM
I think ina round about way, you're making my point.

Why is it we must ask the .gov nicely through a FoIA, don't these people work for us? :scrutiny:

jefnvk
June 21, 2005, 02:38 PM
Lets look at this another way. You have convinced me that maybe the explosive wasn't the type that they claim. And maybe that he was helped. But that is all. You can't prove that the explosive wasnt the fertilizer, and you can't prove that he didn't act alone. I can believe that the things I mentioned above may be wrong. But then again, since no one can prove otherwise, I also can't know for sure that the gov't is lying.

And asking me to believe your evidence over the gov't's, without even considering it, is not helping your case.

richyoung
June 21, 2005, 03:01 PM
You can't prove that the explosive wasnt the fertilizer,


According to explosives experts who have seen the wreckage of the building, or photos thereof, there is no VARIETY, or AMOUNT of ANFO-based explosive that could cause the type of damage observed in some of the failed columns - ONLY a shaped-charge placed on the column itself, with higher-grade explosives, could result in what was seen - smooth cuts, with the cement matrix particlized and blown away, leving the rebar stickingout. ANFO at a distance cannot replicate a cutting charge in contact.

Rebar
June 21, 2005, 03:32 PM
The government lies a lot, this is true.

It's also true that the MSM lies a lot, maybe even more.

It's also true that anti-government people lie a lot, and make up "facts" to "prove" their lies are not lies.

The liberal/left, just about every word out of their mouths are lies.

Conservatives, they lie less, but regularly do stupid things which are as damaging as lies.

Until you conspiracy buffs show soem real proof, well, if the hat fits wear it:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbhead.jpg

griz
June 21, 2005, 03:53 PM
World Trade Center 7 being brought down by demo charges, as admitted by the owner on PBS

I've heard accusations that the building was intentionally brought down but no evidence besides the fact that it fell straight down.

Do you have a link to that admission by chance? Does he mention the reason he knocked down his own building, or how he knew there would be such a golden oppertunity to do so?

taliv
June 21, 2005, 03:55 PM
hey, how come every time i post who blew up the WTC, my post gets deleted??

RaggedClaws
June 21, 2005, 04:00 PM
Muslims did it with the asistance of McVeigh.

:confused: You're kidding, right? Why on earth would Muslims want to blow up a building in Oklahoma? I don't think there's any international significance to anything in Oklahoma at all. No offense intended to Oklahomans :o

Blowing up the WTC, the White House, the Pentagon, yes, that all makes sense. But an Oklahoma City government building? Gimme a break.

TheEgg
June 21, 2005, 04:02 PM
Wow, I think I got lost somewhere in this thread -- but let me try to ask a question.

Somewhere early in this thread the point was made repeatedly that the ATF agents were not in the building, indeed had been told to stay away. That implied that there was fore-knowledge of the explosion -- at least that is what the accusation seems to imply.

OK, I then went to the OKC memorial web site and read all the names and occupations for the dead. For me to buy any of this, I have to believe that the AFT warned and protected ATF employees, but did not see fit to warn and protect:

Secret Service Agents
Armed Services Recruiters
Dept. of Defense Agents
Social Security Employees
Special Agents of HUD
Special Agents of DOT
multiple other federal agents and employees
AND
small children and ordinary citizens.

AND that what must be a massive conspiracy and cover-up by multiple individuals and multiple government agencies, has not produced one conscience stricken whistle blower in the last ten years?

Man, that is a hard case to sell, I think.

taliv
June 21, 2005, 04:09 PM
see, theegg, that's what this patriot act is for... to make it easier for all those depts to communicate.

yucaipa
June 21, 2005, 04:13 PM
In other words, just because the "conspiracy theorists" can't prove their point conclusively does not demonstrate that they are wrong or that it could not have happened that way. ALL it demonstrates is that they don't have proof.

Maybe they can't prove it because it never happened.


Or, just because I'm paranoid that doesn't prove their not after me. :D

centac
June 21, 2005, 04:26 PM
The fact, if it is a fact, that no ATF agents were in the building, therefore they were complicit, makes as much sense as saying that Zoroastorian transexuals were behind it all, after all, none were there.

The idea that the gummit could pull off a conspiracy of this scale, and still loses laptops full of sensitive info and cannot find OBL does more than strain credulity.

I heard someone theorize that people gravitate towards conspiracy when something like this or the JFK assassination occurs because it is so difficult to believe that something this horrible could be done by one or a few relatively "normal" citizens

richyoung
June 21, 2005, 04:28 PM
I've heard accusations that the building was intentionally brought down but no evidence besides the fact that it fell straight down.

There is video clearly showing the puffs of sequenced explosions on successive stories, just like every Las Vegas demo you've ever seen - plus the owner's admission


Do you have a link to that admission by chance?

I have a quote:
9/11 – My own review of the entire event.
by Joël v.d. Reijden

Apparently Larry Silverstein tries to explain something to us in the 2002 PBS documentary ‘America Rebuilds’:

“I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”


Some contende that "pull" means to deliberately demolish - others argue otherwise. Some argue that video shows a controlled implosion of WTC7 - judge for yourself here:WTC7 going down (http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html)



Does he mention the reason he knocked down his own building, or how he knew there would be such a golden oppertunity to do so?


See above - IF "Pull" means to deliberately bring down, it would imply that:

1. Large buildings are pre-wired so that they can be imploded if collapse is emminent.

2. WTC 1 & 2 MIGHT have been deliberately brought down, rather than risk having them collapse into other, unaffected buildings, (boy, I would hate to have to make that decision...)

3. For obvious reasons, they don't want the fact that these buildings are "pre-demo'ed" to get out.


The impications either way are staggering - after the first attempt on the WTC, either:

we did nothing, and if something bad happens, we are gonna watch helpless and "let 'er drop", or...

We pre-placed explosives and control circiutry, so that if a building was reasonably beleived to be in imminent danger of collapse after another terroist attack or similar disaster, a controled implosion inside it's footprint could be assured - but then someone has to make that call....

griz
June 21, 2005, 04:51 PM
Pardon my skepticism, but to believe that most big buildings are “pre wired” is incredible. That would mean that most of the people working construction would have to be in on it. I’m betting we have some construction workers here at THR, any of you seen this? Further, look at all the ADs that LEOs, the military, and gun owners see. Look at the low speed fender benders when air bags blew. Look at way explosive plants are built with sacrificial roofs. In short, anything that CAN go bang DOES accidentally go bang sooner or later. And you have NEVER heard of a building getting accidentally “pulled”.

Hey, believe what you want, but when the people on the scene talk about pulling the fire department out of a building it doesn’t add up to a conspiracy to me.

Bruce H
June 21, 2005, 05:10 PM
The House of representatives and the Senate along wityh the Supreme court are to blaim. Two individuals are responsible.

GEM
June 21, 2005, 05:20 PM
So the president who we elect is not responsible for saving us from this giant conspiracy? That's an interesting take.

What he is supposed to do, if not protect us? That statement is just a comment to let the poster spin his world of plots.

Time for folks to see their mental health professionals.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 06:04 PM
I think ina round about way, you're making my point.

Why is it we must ask the .gov nicely through a FoIA, don't these people work for us?I don't follow. How does the existence of FoIA make your point? (Which point?)

mons meg
June 21, 2005, 06:11 PM
Isn't it time to shoot this lame horse of a thread? :rolleyes:

Phyphor
June 21, 2005, 06:12 PM
this thread deserves to be clubbed like an alien baby seal wearing a tinfoil hat, while piloting a black helicopter to the secret base in Atlantis. :neener:

Derek Zeanah
June 21, 2005, 06:26 PM
Without trying to sound like a member of the tinfoil hat crowd, I think you can state the following: The official explanation is that a rented truck was filled with ANFO (well, 3 tons or so) that was mixed in a haphazard manner. That was set off, and the damage we've all seen was the result.
People who know about such things tend to look at the explanation, look at the data from the scene, and say "there ain't no way that caused the damage at OKC. Maybe some of it, but not the most significant portions."
Everyone I've heard who knows anything about the commercial use of explosives (and the digging I've done into the science behind explosives seem to back their claims up -- that's not the way explosives work) comes to the same conclusion: it's pretty clear explosives were used at the Murrah building, but the official explanation ain't even half the story.
There's speculation that it might be possible to structure ANFO in a way that makes it behave as a shaped charge, but no-one can show where anyone has ever done a proof-of-concept. No-one says McVeigh was a genius with explosives -- able to make them do what no-one else believes is possible.We haven't been told the truth. It's difficult to deny that, if you want to go by what "evidence" is available.

Now as to what "really" happened, who knows? There are statements by ATF folks that they were paged not to come in that day. No ATF were hit. The head of that office claimed to be out of town but there's footage of him digging through his office soon after the blast occurred. It sure was convenient that McVeigh was cruising out of town, while planning on killing hundreds and packing a pistol, in a vehicle without a license plate, and he didn't kill the officer who pulled him over......

It goes on. Something other than the official explanation happened, but it's hard to tell what. We're being lied to, but we don't know why.

At some point you need to trust the experts -- like the FLIR footage at Waco that some claim "proves" the Branch Davidians were shot at while exiting the back of the dining hall. The government expert claims those flashes were "reflections" from something fluttering on the ground. People who deal with that sort of equipment say "no way, Jose -- that ain't the way reflections work, and that's not consistent with what FLIR captures." You can believe the people who understand the equipment that the feds are lying, or you can believe the official story, knowing that the majority of experts on the matter say your explanation is make-believe.

Tin foil? Maybe. Maybe it's just opening your eyes and trusting what you see.

Bruce H
June 21, 2005, 06:32 PM
Well I'm sorry if leaving out the president upsets your sensibilities but They House, Senate and the supreme court are responsible. They are the authors of legislation. The funders of departments and the final say on what fits with the constitution.

El Rojo
June 21, 2005, 06:44 PM
I am not a tin foil hatter, but I know something isn't right at OKC. The simplest way to shut the tin foil hatters up is to release the video they have of the Ryder truck and who got out of it that day. Release the video that shows the building exploding. Release all of that for the public to see and this whol conspiracy theory goes away. Plain and simple. Yet the government won't release it. And that is why I think something isn't right at OKC. Does that mean the government blew up the building? Not necessarily. Does it mean it was it foreign terrorists instead of domestic? Possibly. It is awfully intersting that everyone was looking for this John Doe #2, but now we could care less about him. Was he created out of the hysteria and confusion of that day? Possibly. So why not show us the video of McVeigh getting out of the truck and shut this thing up forever? Until they release the video, my only logical conclusion is McVeigh isn't the only one getting out of the Ryder Truck.

It makes you wonder, for a guy smart enough to make this bomb and carry off the attack, you would think he would be smart enough to at least take out a couple of the guys he was trying to get even with. Yet no ATF died. Imagine that.

Again, I am no tin foil hatter, but the OKC bombing smells bad to me. Too many simple questions not answered by the government.

mons meg
June 21, 2005, 06:52 PM
Another plea to the mods to kill this thread as not only ridiculous, but off topic...

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.

Also, please assume that this is an attempt by me to quash your freedom of speech. Or, maybe it's just an emotional response from someone from Oklahoma City who is tired of hearing all the theories. Maybe this thread should have been posted over at APS...

Oh, and I work for The Man. I can't be trusted.

Beethoven
June 21, 2005, 07:25 PM
Mons meg:

Why don't you take your whining somewhere else?

Biker
June 21, 2005, 07:34 PM
Hey Megster...
Seems to me that you have to click on this thread to read it, hmmmmm?
I'm enjoying it, as a number of others are, apparantly.
So, if ya don't like it, don't read it. Simple enough?
Biker

mons meg
June 21, 2005, 07:37 PM
Hmm, never been accused of whining before. Except for that time Mom wouldn't let me have any more Oreo cookies.

Can we talk about Oreo cookies now? i think it's as relevant to L&P as this thread.

Bear with me...I mean, I'm reading centac's posts and agreeing with him, and we all know he is the Devil Incarnate with Jackboots. The space-time continuum can't handle the strain, so please, in order to save us all from collapsing into a black hole...let's talk about cookies.

Art Eatman
June 22, 2005, 12:07 AM
And on these last three notes...

Nighty-bye...

:), Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Who blew up the OK City building?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!