Oklahoma Federal Building Bombing

A

Anonymous

Guest
#1
Was McVeigh set up to cover for the FBI's failure to stop Is

Was McVeigh set up to cover for the FBI's failure to stop Islamic terrorists?

ABC News seems to think so.

"Just weeks before Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement received several warnings that Islamic terrorists were seeking to strike on American soil and that a likely target was government buildings, documents show..."

Read the rest of their article on the subject:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020620_150.html


-superluminal


PS: While you're at it, why don't you read this conspiracy book about the Men in Black:
City of Pillars, http://www.invispress.com/COP/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#2
Right... i would think that the americans would have loved to blame it on Islamic terrorists... hang on, do you notice something here? Hmm.... i think you're looking in the wrong direction if you want to find the conspiracy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#4
I do sometimes but Its not very good quality. He's also a real american patriot so I dont always agree with his agenda although he has done some good stuff in the past like when he sneeked into Boheimian Grove. He also seems just a little too paranoid for me.... just about every sentence he says has the words 'new world order' in it. And you'll notice he puts a big empthasis on gun control. Hmm....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#5
"Yeah, that's right, Islamics! Really. No kidding. Look, I know the FBI was caught shredding evidence and lying and Ashcroft still won't let anyone see that video that has McVeigh on it with accomplices, and I know the government tried to hide the evidence of additional bombs and covered-up that second Ryder truck in the secret military base, but you can really REALLY trust us when we tell you that Islamics bombed the Murrah building. Gosh, gee, we don't know, maybe it's living over that oil and breathing those fumes that makes those rag-heads go crazy. Best thing in the world for them is if we just take all that oil away from them, let them get their heads cleared up again. We'll drop some MREs on them to keep them going or something." - Matt Rivero
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#6
Re: Was McVeigh set up to cover for the FBI's failure to sto

superluminal said:
Was McVeigh set up to cover for the FBI's failure to stop Islamic terrorists?

ABC News seems to think so.

"Just weeks before Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement received several warnings that Islamic terrorists were seeking to strike on American soil and that a likely target was government buildings, documents show..."
If McVeigh was set to hide the "reality" of an Islamic Terrorist attack, then the FBI messed up at the start when they initially pointed the finger of blame at folks of arabic extraction. (It was only some time later that they realised that the terrorism was home grown.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#7
It's really annoying for me to see conspiracy theorists spreading this story. They seem to think that every bit of information about a conspiracy they come accross must be something that the goverment doesnt want you to know.... but have they never heard of disinformation?

They go on about our press being controled by the goverment and then they go and believe a conspiracy that came straight from ABC news!
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#8
Sort of a personal comment about the thread starter....

Adam Rang said:
It's really annoying for me to see conspiracy theorists spreading this story. They seem to think that every bit of information about a conspiracy they come accross must be something that the goverment doesnt want you to know.... but have they never heard of disinformation?

They go on about our press being controled by the goverment and then they go and believe a conspiracy that came straight from ABC news!
If you look at Superluminal's other posts, the bulk of them seem to be pushing books rather than actually saying ANYTHING! Buy my Book on the subject, 'Peddling books while claiming its discussion' coming soon from Barnes and Noble... yadda, yadda, yadda

Peewee,

Very good comment. I've seen numerous reports that the damage to the building could ONLY have been done if the bomb was attached to the building in some way. The only other possible explanation could depend on where the bomb was situated in relation to the building's service core, since that could channel part of the blast into the first 2 or 3 storeys of the building, which with standard shell and core building is a lot less hard than people think. Unfortunately, almost impossible to recreate with any accuracy out side a computer, since there is a criticality on the initial set up. Anyone got any illutrations showing where the bomb went off in relation to the building? I've done a bit of searching and just come up with a lot of TMcV was a patsy sites...

As a personal comment, I think it could be a case of they don't WANT the villian to be the blonde, blue eyed American hero archetype :)

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#9
The comment was about how conspiracy theorists have contradicted themselves, it wasnt aimed at the origonal poster becuase he never said the media is controled by the goverment.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,932
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#10
Conspiracy! WHAT conspiracy?

A conspiracy of posters here to confuse things, perhaps.

The ABC article does NOT say, or even imply, that TMcV was 'set up'. In fact, it says
But the officials cautioned the FBI and CIA exhaustively investigated whether McVeigh could have been aided by Mideast terrorist and found no credible evidence linking him to any Islamic extremists, including those who prompted the 1995 warnings.
There is no suggestion that he was not guilty in the article.

The article is in fact about the current investigation into the CIA and FBI's handling of reports of pending terrorist attacks, and points out that threats from Islamic groups go way back. This is why the initial idea, after the Oklahoma bombing, was that it was an Islamic attack.


Now maybe the Oklahoma bomb was not set by TMcV, and maybe he was set up, for some strange reason. If so, let's discuss the evidence. But the ABC article is not evidence of that conspiracy.
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#11
[edit] The joy of simultaneous posting changing the meaning of one's postings :D[/edit]

Adam,

Yup, valid point, and I agree. They want their cake and to to eat it :) Its amazing how, if it disagrees with their wolrd view its part of The Con, and if it agrees, its evidence of The Con... My apologies having mis-read your post and quoting it as support of my rant :)

SL's web site is pretty much books at paranoid central, and the catch line of 'The books they don't want you to read' says it all.
Mostly they seem to publish ficton, there being exactly 2 books in the nonfiction catalogue, albeit they specialise in Forteana. I don't mind interested parties posting, but when its mostly to push sales of anything I find it mildly offensive.

Ryn,

No, the ABC site doens't say that TMcV wasn't the trigger man, since he admitted he was, and the implied conspiracy of 'islamic terrorist' is interesting in a different way. Smells of witch hunt. Trying to read around the subject is a mine field, where sites claim that Mc Veigh was sponsored by everyone from the Jews to the Greys , via the US Gov. And of course don't forget the Tim was a Martyr sites which seem obsessed with ZOG :) (lots of Red, black and white on some of those sites). I was also commenting that the genral American Zeitgeist is such that it hard for the All-American hero to actually be a mass murdering, terror peddling, fruit loop who knew there was a kindergarten at the site. So much cosier to blame those 'dirty, murdering, scum sucking A-rab camel jockeys', when the reality of the 'black economy' of terrorism means that chances are there could have been any linkage with any group; IRA, Taliban, Lybia, Syria, American White Supremacist, take your pick, since if one group has a surplus of something they'll sell it to anyone, be it opium, semtex or nitrogenous fertiliser.

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#12
Peewee, it's very plausible. I've been reading a bit about mind kontrol recently wich was developed by nazi scientists who were brought to America. Through their programs, according to whistleblowers, such as MK-ULTRA and its various offshoots (project monarch, etc.) they developed the ability to compartmentalise peoples minds by forcing the brain to actually shut down neuron pathways. Using these compartments of someones minds they can program (brainwash) them to do different things. One tactic was programing a personality to do a certain task (like blowing something up in McVeigh's case) and then take the blame and they can also be made to believe that they actually carried it out as well. This technique can explain a lot of things about some conspiracies... like in Dianas case... you'll notice the drivers almost robotic nature on the CCTV and theres also the question of where he was they day she died. (Out being programmed). A good book to read on this subject is Cathy O'Brian and Mark Philips' "TRANCE-Formation of America".

(Compartmentalised minds are the same thing as multiple personality disorder and its medical term, Disassociative identity disorder.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#13
Not WHO but WHY

Can someone elaborate on who is supposed to have "really" carried out the bombing if it wasn't McVeigh, and why?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#15
Dark Detective said:
Can someone elaborate on who is supposed to have "really" carried out the bombing if it wasn't McVeigh, and why?
Generally, its a problem-reaction-soloution ploy. Lots of 'security' bills were rushed through congress in the wake of the the bombing. The most important one being the ability for US troops to intevene in domestic 'concerns' more readily. Do you smell NWO?

There are other important reasons but I havent really researched this topic much so sombody else may be able to say.
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#16
An extention of the 'Emergency Powers' Act that was passed in 1941, no doubt. Basically, it says the President can do what he likes so long as he tells congress at some stage...

I think most American s don't know that they have lived in a state of emergency that long...

The only president who even considered removing the act was Carter, then Iran blew up in his face

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#17
Well, the problem with that argument is highlighted by asking the question, "if it was a real act of domestic terrorism, what should the government do?" The answer to that question would probably be to take measures to prevent it from happening again, and that may include new security bills. It would be improper for them not to. There is a side issue as to whether these bills were effective (nothing on that scale has occurred again, leaving aside the Anthrax attacks) or whether they're just to reassure the public that something is being done.
If I'm to believe Oklahoma was a conspiracy, I'll need something a little more concrete.
What about the content of these new security bills, were they considerably over the top or a measured response?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#18
Quick question, but if M'cVeigh was innocent, why did stop the appeals process?


Appearing in court via a closed-circuit television hookup from the federal death row prison in Terre Haute, Ind., McVeigh asked U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch to let him die for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing. Dressed in a tan, short-sleeve prison uniform, McVeigh appeared relaxed as the judge questioned him for 35 minutes and asked him whether he knew he making a decision that would affect his life. McVeigh softly replied that he did.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#19
Adam Rang said:
Generally, its a problem-reaction-soloution ploy.
I have a problem with the "problem-reaction-solution" line of reasoning, frequently used by David Icke.

If I understand this correctly, then it goes like this:

Event A occurs.
This provokes a response.
This response is in line with the perceived desires of some conspiracy, therefore the initial event A must have been engineered by "the conspirators." The logic isn't there I'm afraid.

It is also possible to twist a lot of run of the mill "bad things happen" events to fit it.
:)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#20
Most conspiracy theorists do not cite the problem-reaction-soloution theory as proof of a conspiracy, Fortis.
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#21
Who says he never?
Court transcripts for one...

You dont know what happend behind closed doors, you dont know what kind of threats where thrown his way and as Adam said before perhaps he was brainwashed either into doing it or into believing he did it.
True, but then, with all due respect, neither do you. He may have been brainwashed, he may just be a fruit loop... the only people who can REALLY say are not doing so, so its anyone's guess.

As to legisltion rushed thru... politians are the jackal of our species, being opportunists of the first water (and I know that is malgning jackals, but it was the best simlie I could think of...)

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#22
Correct, its anyones guess so we should be carefull when believing that this was the work of one guy with a van full of fertilizer especailly when the evidence suggests differently.
I must admit I find this intriguing. I recall a shedload of academic study done (and still being done) on the WTC impact and collapse - was anything similar forthcoming after the OK attack?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#25
Dark Detective said:
I must admit I find this intriguing. I recall a shedload of academic study done (and still being done) on the WTC impact and collapse - was anything similar forthcoming after the OK attack?
Here's some interesting stuff.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#26
Dark Detective said:
I must admit I find this intriguing. I recall a shedload of academic study done (and still being done) on the WTC impact and collapse - was anything similar forthcoming after the OK attack?
An interesting thought. I'm guessing that there must have been some sort of analysis, if only to determine what other federal buildings would be threatened by this type of attack.

As regards the destructive power of a fertilizer bomb, it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that the so-called "Daisy Cutter" deployed in Afghanistan, which is the largest conventional bomb in the US arsenal, is basically a "fertilizer bomb."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#27
Adam Rang said:
Here's some interesting stuff.
That's more like it. So, is the official line then that there was only one bomb (in the van) as opposed to three?
It ties up with what I heard shortly after the original incident. There was a claim there was more than one explosion, and that suggested it was a "barometric" bomb (igniting a large cloud of gas) as opposed to a bog standard heap of fertilizer. Suppose there was a fourth bomb that did go off, that was also planted on a gas line similar to the third, then might the fertilizer bomb cause more damage with a large gas cloud accumulating in the base of the building?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#28
Adam Rang said:
Most conspiracy theorists do not cite the problem-reaction-soloution theory as proof of a conspiracy, Fortis.
Perhaps not explicitly, but the evidence that is frequently provided in these cases is "it could have happened, and this would be the motivation." Here, for example, the evidence appears to be of the form of a post-hoc justification for why the government would set up M'cVeigh. The only bit of physical evidence that seems to have been produced (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that an un-named "ex-CIA" employee has expressed doubts about the amount of damage that could have been caused with a van loaded with a fertilizer bomb. The rest of the discussion has focussed on how and why a government conspiracy could be carried out, but this can only be speculation if we can't say that it *is* a government conspiracy. (I, have to admit that it is fun though :) )
 

NilesCalder

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,818
Likes
12
Points
67
#29
To justify Problem-Reaction-Solution you would have to be able trace the chain of 'command' between the agency that profits and that which finally carries out the provoking action.

No conspiracy worth it's salt would make that easy as if you could prove the connection then you would blow open the whole thing.

Niles "There is no Conspiracy" Calder
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#30
Fortis said:
Perhaps not explicitly, but the evidence that is frequently provided in these cases is "it could have happened, and this would be the motivation." Here, for example, the evidence appears to be of the form of a post-hoc justification for why the government would set up M'cVeigh. The only bit of physical evidence that seems to have been produced (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that an un-named "ex-CIA" employee has expressed doubts about the amount of damage that could have been caused with a van loaded with a fertilizer bomb. The rest of the discussion has focussed on how and why a government conspiracy could be carried out, but this can only be speculation if we can't say that it *is* a government conspiracy. (I, have to admit that it is fun though :) )
Naa... I think theres way more to it than that Fortis. Documents, photos, siesmic recordings, eye witness accounts, and many other anomalies that contradict the official story. I'll do some research and get back to you on that one though.
 
Top