Who blew up the OK City building?

[2nd Amendment]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have the answer !!!




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.

 

[beerslurpy]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It wasn't an ANFO bomb?

Maybe it was a directed energy weapon?

This site really needs a tin foil smiley.

 

[auschip]

This site really needs a tin foil smiley.

Like this one?

 

[richyoung]

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]

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]

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]

Interesting

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...