OKC Bombing Coverup?

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: OKC Bombing Coverup?

Originally posted by Luke T. [/i]

>>First, you need to place a link to this transcript.

A "link"??? Every television transcript does not have a "link". I've provided source and date. If you wish to verify it, you can get the transcript from the Federal Document Clearing House, 1100 Mercantile Lane, Suite 119, Landover, MD 20785.

>>Second, an elevator is not going to fall six stories before the built-in safety systems stop it from falling.

>>The safety systems are designed to lock the elevator against the guide rail almost immediately.

>>So if this Duane James was truly some kind of elevator expert and someone presented the above scenario to him, his first response would have been that fact. What exactly are his qualifications to speak on the matter?

Only the elevator maintenance man, who arrived on the scene 20 minutes after the bomb blast. And elevators do crash; but none did in the Murrah Building. ABC took picutires and verified it all. Thus, in the ATF's attempt to show that one of their own really did not get the warning and was in fact injured was more evidence of just another big lie.

-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by NightG1 [/i]

>>No. It's woo-woo stuff if the only evidence that supports it is conjecture or the "gosh, isn't it odd that..." kind of creative thinking or the ubiquitous "unnamed ATF source".

The un-named source had a name and a face, but for obvious reasons wished to remain anonymous. Moroever, the claim is corroborated by the fact that no ATF were killed or injured, though the bomb tore thru their 9th floor offices.

>> All the physical evidence backs the government's "case"

What physcial evidence? The physical evidence in the building itself was immediatly destroyed and buried.

>>and is only opposed by people who have a vested interest in this 5 year-old conspiracy staying in the news.

Oh, bunk. That's certainly not what the Nichols Jury Foreperson said in her post verdict interview and she hardly had any vested interest, but soon thereafter was silenced due to death threats on her and family.

"I think there are other people out there and decisions were probably made very early on that Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were who they were looking for. And the same sort of resources were not used to try to find out who else might be involved....I think the government dropped the ball and if there are people who were very actively involved in this horrible crime, that it's an obligation to find them. And to bring them into the justice system. I think this was a horrible thing to have done, and I doubt very much that two people -- if Terry Nichols was even greatly involved, that two people would have been enough to be able to carry it
off.." -- Jury Foreperson Niki Deutchman, Denver Post, 12/14/97

http://www.aci.net/kalliste/niki.htm


>> Tom Jarriel of ABC News and his British colleague are journalists and not authorities I would respect in this instance.

No, they are disinterested, widely respected neutral reporters who you would instantly point to if they held to your own view.


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin [/i]


>>even a broken clock being correct twice a day, and all that.


CS does not even have the twice a day integrity of a broken clock, his one-note "moon-walk" song, more like a broken record.


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mycroft [/i]


>>Further, if a person proclaims an incorrect belief, is corrected, is shown evidence that he is wrong, and still persists in arguing his incorrect belief, then we have reason to doubt his rationality.

Excellent reasoning. And just what example could you, yourself , provide as to such an "incorrect belief" corrected? Post it right here: _______.


-- Rouser

 

[Luke T.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKC Bombing Coverup?

Originally posted by Luke T. [/i]

>>First, you need to place a link to this transcript.

A "link"??? Every television transcript does not have a "link". I've provided source and date. If you wish to verify it, you can get the transcript from the Federal Document Clearing House, 1100 Mercantile Lane, Suite 119, Landover, MD 20785.

>>Second, an elevator is not going to fall six stories before the built-in safety systems stop it from falling.

>>The safety systems are designed to lock the elevator against the guide rail almost immediately.

>>So if this Duane James was truly some kind of elevator expert and someone presented the above scenario to him, his first response would have been that fact. What exactly are his qualifications to speak on the matter?

Only the elevator maintenance man, who arrived on the scene 20 minutes after the bomb blast. And elevators do crash; but none did in the Murrah Building. ABC took picutires and verified it all. Thus, in the ATF's attempt to show that one of their own really did not get the warning and was in fact injured was more evidence of just another big lie.

-- Rouser

I would like to see these ABC sources. Not some whacko conspiracy website/book stuff. If ABC covered it, they will have it online.

But here is a whacko conspiracy site that mentions Duane James and verifies what I said about the elevator and that the safety features would be his first response.

If the ATF thought they could get away with this farrago, they had underestimated the 23-year-old redhead and her affable stepfather. Curiosity piqued, the Wilburns tried their hand as amateur sleuths. With the help of a freelance reporter, John "J.D." Cash, Glenn contacted the Midwestern Elevator Company, the firm that had actually searched the elevators for survivors.

"The first thing we did was split up and check, then double check, each elevator for occupants," explained Duane James, one of the engineers. "We found that five of the six elevators were frozen between floors, and a sixth had stopped near floor level….We had to go in through the ceilings of the elevators to check for people….All were empty."

Agent Alex McCauley could not possibly have broken out before the team arrived, said James, "not unless he had a blowtorch with him….The doors were all frozen shut….It took several of our men over twelve hours just to get the one elevator opened."

None of the elevators had been in a free fall. "That’s pure fantasy. Modern elevators have counterbalances and can’t free fall unless you cut the cables, and none were. There are a series of backup safety switches that will lock an elevator in place if it increases in speed more than 10 percent."

So let's see. This somehow proves the ATF knew ahead of time the attack was going to take place. I sure would like to hear the twisted reasoning behind that conclusion.

"Say fellas, this building is going to be bombed tomorrow, let's all make sure we aren't around." And that is supposedly the extent of the plan.

The blast occurs, then an investigation begins.

"So tell me, where were you ATF guys when the blast hit?"

"Duhhhhhh. Ummmmm. Uhhhhh."

What masters of deception! What pre-planning! They somehow are too stupid to come up with a plausible explanation for their whereabouts or alibis even though they had foreknowledge, and yet are geniuses at covering it all up.

 

[NightG1]

The un-named source had a name and a face, but for obvious reasons wished to remain anonymous. Moroever, the claim is corroborated by the fact that no ATF were killed or injured, though the bomb tore thru their 9th floor offices.

So there is no evidence to support a conspiracy except from some unnamed deep throat mystery agent, wow. And a senior ATF administrator was killed in the blast. Check your facts.

What physcial evidence? The physical evidence in the building itself was immediatly destroyed and buried.

Then there is no evidence for a conspiracy then is there.

Oh, bunk. That's certainly not what the Nichols Jury Foreperson said in her post verdict interview and she hardly had any vested interest, but soon thereafter was silenced due to death threats on her and family.

Ah, yes. The mysterious death threat from some faceless government black agent. Oooohhhh. Real spooky. Sorry, I'm not impressed.

"I think there are other people out there and decisions were probably made very early on that Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were who they were looking for. And the same sort of resources were not used to try to find out who else might be involved....I think the government dropped the ball and if there are people who were very actively involved in this horrible crime, that it's an obligation to find them. And to bring them into the justice system. I think this was a horrible thing to have done, and I doubt very much that two people -- if Terry Nichols was even greatly involved, that two people would have been enough to be able to carry it
off.." -- Jury Foreperson Niki Deutchman, Denver Post, 12/14/97

The operative phrase in the above are the first two words "I think". And what exactly does your quote prove? That there were other people involved? So what?

No, they are disinterested, widely respected neutral reporters who you would instantly point to if they held to your own view.

They became interested once their involvement is added to their resume or their book was published. Personal fame and fortune are very powerful motivators and cause people to do all sorts of idiotic or unethical things. I am not saying these two men are unethical, just that they can not be relied upon as objective. If there was any incontroverable evidence of a larger conspiracy then people would be in jail.

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKC Bombing Coverup?

I would like to see these ABC sources. Not some whacko conspiracy website/book stuff. If ABC covered it, they will have it online.

But here is a whacko conspiracy site that mentions Duane James and verifies what I said about the elevator and that the safety features would be his first response.



So let's see. This somehow proves the ATF knew ahead of time the attack was going to take place. I sure would like to hear the twisted reasoning behind that conclusion.

"Say fellas, this building is going to be bombed tomorrow, let's all make sure we aren't around." And that is supposedly the extent of the plan.

The blast occurs, then an investigation begins.

"So tell me, where were you ATF guys when the blast hit?"

"Duhhhhhh. Ummmmm. Uhhhhh."

What masters of deception! What pre-planning! They somehow are too stupid to come up with a plausible explanation for their whereabouts or alibis even though they had foreknowledge, and yet are geniuses at covering it all up.

Comment: And so, your point is......???


-- Rouser

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKC Bombing Coverup?

Comment: And so, your point is......???


-- Rouser

That if your little theory is correct, then Luke T was on the grassy knoll.

 

[Luke T.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKC Bombing Coverup?

That if your little theory is correct, then Luke T was on the grassy knoll.

I wasn't anywhere near the grassy knoll! I have an airtight alibi. Just ask my black helicopter copilot, Jimmy Hoffa.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by NightG1 [/i]

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The un-named source had a name and a face, but for obvious reasons wished to remain anonymous. Moroever, the claim is corroborated by the fact that no ATF were killed or injured, though the bomb tore thru their 9th floor offices.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>So there is no evidence to support a conspiracy except from some unnamed deep throat mystery agent, wow.

The evidence of a wider conspiracy including foreknowledge by government agencies is legion. This report of ABC 20/20/s witness is just one indication that the ATF agents were warned, in advance. Wow, yourself.

>>And a senior ATF administrator was killed in the blast. Check your facts.


A low level secretary is not an ATF agent nor a "senior administrator. Nor would your un-sourced allegation refute the fact that no ATF agents were on the offical death lists.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What physcial evidence? The physical evidence in the building itself was immediatly destroyed and buried.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Then there is no evidence for a conspiracy then is there.

Physical evidence? Not from what was quickly buried by the Feds. But plenty of other evidence in the form of witnesses as well as published reports of FBI lab tampering of what evidence was retained.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, bunk. That's certainly not what the Nichols Jury Foreperson said in her post verdict interview and she hardly had any vested interest, but soon thereafter was silenced due to death threats on her and family.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Ah, yes. The mysterious death threat from some faceless government black agent. Oooohhhh. Real spooky. Sorry, I'm not impressed.

No, you wouldn't be. But then you weren't the target.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I think there are other people out there and decisions were probably made very early on that Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were who they were looking for. And the same sort of resources were not used to try to find out who else might be involved....I think the government dropped the ball and if there are people who were very actively involved in this horrible crime, that it's an obligation to find them. And to bring them into the justice system. I think this was a horrible thing to have done, and I doubt very much that two people -- if Terry Nichols was even greatly involved, that two people would have been enough to be able to carry it
off.." -- Jury Foreperson Niki Deutchman, Denver Post, 12/14/97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>The operative phrase in the above are the first two words "I think". And what exactly does your quote prove?

It proves that the previous statement made by some deaf, dumb and blind sleepwalker on this board, that only those with a "vested" interest believe there were more people involved, is patently false.

>>They became interested once their involvement is added to their resume or their book was published. Personal fame and fortune are very powerful motivators and cause people to do all sorts of idiotic or unethical things. I am not saying these two men are unethical, just that they can not be relied upon as objective. If there was any incontroverable evidence of a larger conspiracy then people would be in jail.

Perhaps the most ignorant statement of all. The only people who go to jail are those who are discovered and prosecuted, then found guilty by a judge or jury. All others remain at large, including a fella by the name of Osama bin Laden. But by your logic, since he is not in jail, he's no cirminal either, eh???? By the way, just what government school did you attend?


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKC Bombing Coverup?

Originally posted by Rouser2 [/i]

Originally posted by Luke T.
>>I would like to see these ABC sources. Not some whacko conspiracy website/book stuff. If ABC covered it, they will have it online.

Wacko conspiracy website? My quotes come directly from ABC as/per the Federal Document Clearing House. ABC does not keep program transcripts on their website.

As a matter of fact, I could easily provide you with an official transcript. And if I did, what would that prove to one determined to keep head and brain buried in sand??? I don't think you'd even want to see it. That is correct, isn't it? Course it is.

-- Rouser

 

[Mycroft]

Excellent reasoning. And just what example could you, yourself , provide as to such an "incorrect belief" corrected? Post it right here: _______.

I was only responding to Regnad Kcin's assertion that irrational beliefs on one subject do not take away from credibility on other subjects. In my opinion, it clearly depends on the subjects and the willingness of the person to review his own beliefs based upon new information.

I do, however, seem to remember a conversation involving you and some odd beliefs about the nature of our Federal Reserve monetary system. I forget what position you took.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mycroft [/i]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
Excellent reasoning. And just what example could you, yourself , provide as to such an "incorrect belief" corrected? Post it right here: _______.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>I was only responding to Regnad Kcin's assertion that irrational beliefs on one subject do not take away from credibility on other subjects. In my opinion, it clearly depends on the subjects and the willingness of the person to review his own beliefs based upon new information.

So your innuendo was baseless.


>>I do, however, seem to remember a conversation involving you and some odd beliefs about the nature of our Federal Reserve monetary system. I forget what position you took.

And now another one. A baseless innuendo. You say a certain belief was "odd" but you don't even remember what it was. Here's a suggestion. When making a post, try to have a POINT. It makes it so much more interesting!


-- Rouser

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Rouser2
So your innuendo was baseless.

You misunderstand. It wasn't intended as innuendo. It wasn't directed at you at all.

Originally posted by Rouser2 And now another one. A baseless innuendo. You say a certain belief was "odd" but you don't even remember what it was. Here's a suggestion. When making a post, try to have a POINT. It makes it so much more interesting!

My point was to disagree with Regnad Kcin. If you have a problem with that, then I'd suggest a different hobby for you.

As for the other issue, frankly I don't even remember that it was you.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That depends on the beliefs. If I know someone holds an incorrect belief about basketball, I don't consider that good reason to doubt his knowledge of tax law. Nobody is an expert on everything; all of us are ignorant in some areas.

On the other hand, if he demonstrates a belief that suggests he may be prone to paranoid conspiracy theories, maybe he believes that ordinary contrails left by passing jets may actually be chemtrails dispersed by the government to test chemical/biological warfare on an unsuspecting population; I will certainly pay less attention to similar theories he may propose that involve secret government cover-ups.

Further, if a person proclaims an incorrect belief, is corrected, is shown evidence that he is wrong, and still persists in arguing his incorrect belief, then we have reason to doubt his rationality.

An incorrect belief may only represent an error in knowledge, or it may demonstrate a faulty reasoning process.

Well said. That is my answer too!!!

Rouser2 has consistantly shown he is a paranoid conspiracy believing idiot. As he is demonstrating again in this thread.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin [/i]


>>even a broken clock being correct twice a day, and all that.


CS does not even have the twice a day integrity of a broken clock, his one-note "moon-walk" song, more like a broken record.


-- Rouser

Notice that you still haven't answered any of the questions.

Moron.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I do, however, seem to remember a conversation involving you and some odd beliefs about the nature of our Federal Reserve monetary system. I forget what position you took.

The delusional loony position.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I was only responding to Regnad Kcin's assertion that irrational beliefs on one subject do not take away from credibility on other subjects. In my opinion, it clearly depends on the subjects and the willingness of the person to review his own beliefs based upon new information.

It feels as if you and I are in agreement. Perhaps it's a matter of nuance.

In discussing Rouser2's assertion(s), we can verify and/or weigh the items he presents. These things are of primary concern, and independent of the messenger.

However, if he (or anyone) is speculating based on his interpretation or extrapolation of the objective criteria, then I agree it's open season.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Notice that you still haven't answered any of the questions.

Yet as I demonstrated here, he certainly seems to have answered quite clearly (in regard to the moon landing, anyway). Twice.

I've asked you at least a couple of times in this thread to provide a quote to back up your contention:

Rouser2 really believes that. I'm serious.

You haven't responded to my request, so I'm asking again.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yet as I demonstrated here, he certainly seems to have answered quite clearly (in regard to the moon landing, anyway). Twice.

I've asked you at least a couple of times in this thread to provide a quote to back up your contention:You haven't responded to my request, so I'm asking again.

He admitted (in so many words) that it was a hoax. I just can't find it. Might have been in one of the threads that was pruned.

But he can clear the whole thing up right now, by answering my questions. But he won't. He's too stupid, quite frankly.