OKC Bombing Coverup?

[Dancing David]

jayna davis certainly reads better than the NewAmerican:

Jayna'a Webite for her book

For example, Nichols was a man of modest means. Yet he traveled frequently to the Philippines. Davis discovered that Nichols was there, in Cebu City in December 1994, at the same time as the convicted mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack, Ramzi Yousef.

I like that, she reports on what she knows and does not draw the conclusion that they must have met. that is better journalism.

I am unhappy with all the eye witness reports of certain events. And I am very unhappy to read that there is a hotel register under wraps.

There is a real rpoblem with eyewitness testimony unfortuantely, but if they could trace an alias for the alleged Iraqui agent to the hotel, that would be damning evidence.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>I called o'Reiley "King of the Liars", which he is followed by Ann Coulter.

Well now you do indeed seem to have a penchant for calling people names -- especially derogatory names. You don't suppose that you do that as a substitute for thinking, now do you??? Obviously, as a student of the media and its credibility, you must be able to cite any number of examples to back up your ad hominems. O'Reilly, the King of liars? And just what lies has he told? Can you name just one? And ditto Miss Coulter. Just what has she "lied" about??? Could you proffer just one example???

>>I have no doubt that >there will be more than i will ever know in my lifetime about the OKC bombing,

Perhaps the most truthful statement you have ever made.

>>However there also seems to be very strong evidence that the OKC bombing was linked to a right wing grou or groups.


And just what does that have to do with anything other than the fact that there are still "Others Unknown" still at large and don't disparate groups with common enemies often work together?

>>And that isn't reorted by the JBS web site.

So you make a conclusion based on a single issue web page of the New American? What other issues have you checked?

>>And yes I consider a lot of the reporting on 20/20 specious and unsuppoted,

A lot, eh? Not just the one about the AFT??? Perhaps you could name just one instance of "specious" and "unsupported"????


>>I fing that to be true of about 80% of the infotainment field.


80% sure must be a lot of "infotainment" (sic). Then just what sources can anyone rely on? Pronouncements from Dancing David???

>>On the other hand: what motive would McVeigh have for not telling the truth while he faced execution

Perhaps he merely saw himself as the good soldier -- one who doesn't rat on his comrades. I suggest you read his lawyer's book "Others Unknown" by Stephen Jones.


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>There is a real rpoblem with eyewitness testimony unfortuantely,

>>Is there any kind of evidence that does not pose any problem for you?


-- Rouser

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Rouser2 may not be a rapist but he supports rape and thinks that it is something that should ne encouraged.

Thank you for reminding us of that!!!

He also believes that the moon landing was a hoax, and that there were numerous shooters in Dealey Plaza.

I saw a feature on CBS Sunday Morning today about the 50th anniversary of the polio vaccine. It reminded me that Rouser2 also believes that vaccines are a goivernment conspiracy to kill people. It also reminded me of how stupid he is!!!

Let's keep laughing at him. It's fun!!!

 

[Dancing David]

Well now you do indeed seem to have a penchant for calling people names -- especially derogatory names. You don't suppose that you do that as a substitute for thinking, now do you???

I don't know as a nitwit and a panderer to the feminist revolution my judgement is off.

Obviously, as a student of the media and its credibility, you must be able to cite any number of examples to back up your ad hominems. O'Reilly, the King of liars? And just what lies has he told? Can you name just one? And ditto Miss Coulter. Just what has she "lied" about??? Could you proffer just one example???

As you say, if you would read you would know, I believe that there are authors who make a living pointing out O'Reiley and Ann Coulter's error, my favorite of AC's most recently was that Bill Clinton bombed Serbia to aid islamic terrorists.



Perhaps the most truthful statement you have ever made.

Well thats an infinity more than the truthful statements of Rouser2



And just what does that have to do with anything other than the fact that there are still "Others Unknown" still at large and don't disparate groups with common enemies often work together?

Personal belief that the right wing nut cases want us to forget that they bombed the Murrah building.



So you make a conclusion based on a single issue web page of the New American? What other issues have you checked?

Sorry, family history of thinking the JBS are a bunch of kooks, includes my right wing granpa and my liberal father.
They seemed to be engaging is sloppy journalism. Which will then get repeated as fact by other right wing kooks.


A lot, eh? Not just the one about the AFT??? Perhaps you could name just one instance of "specious" and "unsupported"????

Personal belief and judgement, irreducable qualia. 20/20 is not a very accurate source of information. There are plenty of outlets that judge the accuracy of the media. Of course you might find them to be leftists.


80% sure must be a lot of "infotainment" (sic). Then just what sources can anyone rely on? Pronouncements from Dancing David???

Sorry , if you don't know what info-tainment is then well, you shouln't ought to know.
It is certainly as good a source as the Pronouncements of Rouser2, not a funny however.


Perhaps he merely saw himself as the good soldier -- one who doesn't rat on his comrades. I suggest you read his lawyer's book "Others Unknown" by Stephen Jones.


That's right the same little soldier who swore to defend the USA and blew up it's citizens. Again I ask what motive would he have for not telling the truth? Especialy when it would have upset the apple cart of the government he was trying to overturn.


-- Rouser [/B]

 

[neofight]

originally posted by Dancing David

I have no doubt that there will be more than i will ever know in my lifetime about the OKC bombing, and I will read up on J. Davis evidence.

No doubt you are right about that. I've mainly been following the sometimes circumstantial, but very compelling case that's been presented by Jayna Davis of KFOR, who was the original lead investigator on the Middle Eastern angle of the Oklahoma City bombing.

A couple of years ago, in Philadelphia, my husband and I attended a presentation that she made at the Adams Mark Hotel, hosted by Michael Smerconish, a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, and radio talk-show host with "The Big Talker 1210AM" on WPHT, and I can only say that her evidence is more than credible, and her case is extremely convincing.

I know Smerconish arranged to go with Jayna Davis to Washington where they met with Sen. Arlen Specter in his office, and presented him with this same evidence. There are a lot of influential and serious people who have looked at her case and found her evidence to be very credible, and worthy of further investigation. Hopefully the link between Iraqi operatives and al Qaeda and the 1993 bombing of the WTC, and the Oklahoma City bombing will soon be confirmed.

Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylorie, however, are by no means the only individuals working on this story. There is an enormous amount of other investigative work out there as well, and these people are definitely not all right-wingnuts and whackjobs, as some posting here on this thread would have one believe.

Those who dismiss the Iraqi and al Qaeda complicity theory as "woo-woo" without researching it on their own are extremely ill-informed, and should stick to less serious subject matter, imo. They appear really ignorant otherwise.

originally posted by Dancing David

On the other hand: what motive would McVeigh have for not telling the truth while he faced execution:

As far as why McVeigh claimed he did it on his own? Who knows? Maybe the sick freak just didn't want to share the "glory", and wanted his place in history to be as prominent as possible.

According to J.M. Berger on INTELLWIRE.com:

"On April 19, 1995, an imprisoned Abdul Hakim Murad told his U.S. captors that he and Ramzi Yousef were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. He repeated the claim to the FBI the next day.35"

http://www.intelwire.com/nichols022004.html

......neo

edited to correct the spelling of Sen. Arlen Specter's name.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>As you say, if you would read you would know, I believe that there are authors who make a living pointing out O'Reiley and Ann Coulter's error,


Indeed. But you, yourself haven't been able to point to any. Just make ridiculous, unsupported statements such as...

>> my favorite of AC's most recently was that Bill Clinton bombed Serbia to aid islamic terrorists.

Obviously, your un-linked, un-sourced statement is false. In the first place, Clinton did indeed make a decision to bomb Serbia; it did indeed aid the other side, some of whom were indeed terrorists. But the attribution to Clinton's motivation is not a "lie", but an "opinion". Do you understand the difference? Nonetheless, if Coulter ever said it, you haven't sourced it. Typical.

Rouser:
>>And just what does that have to do with anything other than the fact that there are still "Others Unknown" still at large and don't disparate groups with common enemies often work together?

>>Personal belief that the right wing nut cases want us to forget that they bombed the Murrah building.

That's a bunch of crap. If The New American is the source you claim wants to pin the rap only on others besides those those who you call "right wingers" you are again, completely and totally off base. They have had plenty of stories about those folks as well. Here's an except of just one. Note that I source my stuff, unlike your own made up fiction:

"...Carol Howe gave the government advance warning about the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as extensive documentation concerning suspected accomplices of McVeigh at "Elohim City," a rural enclave associated with the Aryan Nations, the Ku Klux Klan, and the White Aryan Resistance. Carol Howe provided testimony and evidence pointing to German neo-Nazi Andreas Strassmeir as a key suspect...."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/okc/


Goodness, gracious? Here's The New American, a JBS published Mag attributing the OKC bombing to a bunch of right wing terrorists? Sorry to have burst your convenient stereotypical simple-minded view of the world and of The John Birch Society.

>>Sorry, family history of thinking the JBS are a bunch of kooks, includes my right wing granpa and my liberal father.

But you havn't yet been able to offer any examples of New American "kookdum". YOur grandpa is ancient history. Remember how racist the left wing democrat party was at one time???? Nah!

>>They seemed to be engaging is sloppy journalism. Which will then get repeated as fact by other right wing kooks.

Sloppy journalism? Another unsupported assertion.

Rouser:
>A lot, eh? Not just the one about the AFT??? Perhaps you could name just one instance of "specious" and "unsupported"????

>>Personal belief and judgement, irreducable qualia. 20/20 is not a very accurate source of information.

But no examples of that either. You know what I think? I think that you are an incredibly inaccurate source of information. And I've got examples of that all over this board.

-- Rouser

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer on 4/25 at 10:41 AM
He also believes that the moon landing was a hoax...

Originally posted by Rouser2 on 4/24 at 7:48 AM
No, I do not...endorse moon-landing hoaxes...

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Let's keep laughing at him. It's fun!!!

I don't mean to play Thread Cop, but, while it may be "fun" to ridicule, how does such behavior contribute to a discussion about what is certainly a serious allegation?

 

[neofight]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Let's keep laughing at him. It's fun!!!

For the feeble-minded, perhaps, but if you are a serious poster, why act like a troll? It's not really very productive, and it's certainly not conducive to a serious discussion of the topic, is it?.....neo

 

[Dancing David]

Rouser2:
Look I did cite a source, I never thought you were Outcast but I thought you had read the "How 911 happened " thread
Ann Coulter Editorial

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

Ooops I used the word terrorist. She also insults the military under Carter.

As to your post:

Indeed. But you, yourself haven't been able to point to any. Just make ridiculous, unsupported statements such as...

>> my favorite of AC's most recently was that Bill Clinton bombed Serbia to aid islamic terrorists.

As noted she said fanatic not terorist. She also alleges that Clinton bombed Iraq because of Monica-gate, not the fact that Iraq painted out jets with radar.

Obviously, your un-linked, un-sourced statement is false. In the first place, Clinton did indeed make a decision to bomb Serbia; it did indeed aid the other side, some of whom were indeed terrorists. But the attribution to Clinton's motivation is not a "lie", but an "opinion". Do you understand the difference? Nonetheless, if Coulter ever said it, you haven't sourced it. Typical.

Yes that would be typical of you , now wouldn't it.

DD
>>Personal belief that the right wing nut cases want us to forget that they bombed the Murrah building.

Rouser2
That's a bunch of crap. If The New American is the source you claim wants to pin the rap only on others besides those those who you call "right wingers" you are again, completely and totally off base. They have had plenty of stories about those folks as well. Here's an except of just one. Note that I source my stuff, unlike your own made up fiction:

"...Carol Howe gave the government advance warning about the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as extensive documentation concerning suspected accomplices of McVeigh at "Elohim City," a rural enclave associated with the Aryan Nations, the Ku Klux Klan, and the White Aryan Resistance. Carol Howe provided testimony and evidence pointing to German neo-Nazi Andreas Strassmeir as a key suspect...."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/okc/


Goodness, gracious? Here's The New American, a JBS published Mag attributing the OKC bombing to a bunch of right wing terrorists? Sorry to have burst your convenient stereotypical simple-minded view of the world and of The John Birch Society.

I admitted it was a personal belief. You asked I answered, I don't need to cite resources for my own personal beliefs.

But you havn't yet been able to offer any examples of New American "kookdum". YOur grandpa is ancient history. Remember how racist the left wing democrat party was at one time???? Nah!

I suppose I could but it is better this way, I don't read then and they don't get trashed, the source they cited in the article I linked to was unsupported by the original source.

My grandfather would have been a Whig if he could have been, and was certainly never a democrat, although I believe he did vote for Truman, my grandmother never did.

I am well aware of the history of the democratic party, I am not a member.

Sloppy journalism? Another unsupported assertion.

I gave my reasons I felt that it was unsupported by the original source. You haven't cited the original to prove me wrong.

But no examples of that either. You know what I think? I think that you are an incredibly inaccurate source of information. And I've got examples of that all over this board.

Bluster away old bean, it does cheer me up. please show my inaccuracies, I will apologise and learn at the same time. The source is at your finger tips. My mirror can always use the polish.

I think that you are an incredibly inaccurate source of information.

This almost rates a thread in and of itself. Put your posts where your bluster is, my ego can always stand to be notched down! I await you showing me how I am "incredibly inaccurate', would that be wrong 10%? I would assume that such a bold statement would mean I am wrong over 50%

Lets see your stuff Rouser2.

 

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


For the feeble-minded, perhaps, but if you are a serious poster, why act like a troll? It's not really very productive, and it's certainly not conducive to a serious discussion of the topic, is it?.....neo

That depends, I have only recently begun to debate Rouser2. He/she makes some really interesting statements on a wide variety of subjects. About as interesting as Ted Kennedy.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>Rouser2:
Look I did cite a source, I never thought you were Outcast but I thought you had read the "How 911 happened " thread
Ann Coulter Editorial

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

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.


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

>>Ooops I used the word terrorist. She also insults the military under Carter.



Ooops?? You said she is a liar and gave this one unsourced example. There is no "lie" here. That leaves you with zero examples of your own selected media criticism. You called Coulter and O'Reilly a liar, and accused 20/20 of innacurrate journalism along with The New American. But as to examples, you've come up with zero. Does that make you a "liar"? Not necessarily. Perhaps just another poor, hapless victim.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sloppy journalism? Another unsupported assertion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>I gave my reasons I felt that it was unsupported by the original source. You haven't cited the original to prove me wrong.

The original source for what? ATF pager warning? I most certainly did -- Bruce Shaw, corroborated by ATF employee Mrs. Bruce Shaw. Now where is the "sloppy journalism"???


-- Rouser

 

[NightG1]

I don't mean to play Thread Cop, but, while it may be "fun" to ridicule, how does such behavior contribute to a discussion about what is certainly a serious allegation?

Nick:
The point is that this is an allegation that has no supporting evidence. I keep waiting for Rouser to show us conclusive proof that pagers were used to warn the ATF but all we get in return are limp excuses like "the government buried all the evidence". I wouldn't call it "serious", annoying maybe but not serious.

 

[Dancing David]

>>I gave my reasons I felt that it was unsupported by the original source. You haven't cited the original to prove me wrong.

The original source for what? ATF pager warning? I most certainly did -- Bruce Shaw, corroborated by ATF employee Mrs. Bruce Shaw. Now where is the "sloppy journalism"???

I think you are confused here, I claimed that the New American was citing the Insight article incorrectly. You still javen't shown other wise.

And if you wish to think that the only response of Bill Clinton's to Islamic fanatics was to bomb Serbia I can't change you mind.

On Bill O'Reilly, I believe that he claimed a show he had left had one to awards that it had not because he mistook the name of the award.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by NightG1 [/i]


>>The point is that this is an allegation that has no supporting evidence. I keep waiting for Rouser to show us conclusive proof that pagers were used to warn the ATF but all we get in return are limp excuses like "the government buried all the evidence". I wouldn't call it "serious", annoying maybe but not serious.


Conclusive proof??? And just what could that possibly be? An ATF affidavit admitting to prior knowledge and pager warnings? An admission from the person who sent out the page but gave no warnings to anyone else -- not even the parents of the children in the daycare center?

The Citizens grand jury claimed two ATF agents were in the building at the time of the blast. Proof of that??? Their own word. In other words none, zero, natta.

Fact is, the ABC 20/20 story came from the mouth of Bruce Shaw, whose wife worked for the ATF and independently corroborated it. Fact is, the ninth floor ATF offices were devastated by the blast. Fact is, no ATF Agents showed up on the death list. Fact is, the ATF apparently concocted a story about its lead agent Macaully, wounded in a trapped elevator which fell six floors. Fact is ABC throughly checked out the story with the maintenance men from the Midwest Elevator Co. who were on the scene 20 minutes later and said there were none trapped and no elevators fell. Pictures were taken to verfify that fact and the strong implication is that the ATF made up the story. Fact is Agent Luke Franey who was named as the one other ATF agent in the building, injured by the blast was seen by the first police officer on the scene, walking around, uninjured with clean uniform and photographed as well. Besides the pager story, there is plently of other evidence of prior knowledge including warnings to the Fire Dept., and the bomb squad on the scene with dogs in the early morning hours plus ATF Informant Carol Howe's claim of prior knowledge Now I don't know what other kind of "conclusive proof" there could possibly be for an ATF cover-up of prior knowledge, but none are so blind as they who will not see.


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>I think you are confused here, I claimed that the New American was citing the Insight article incorrectly. You still javen't shown other wise.

You claimed that the New American cited an Insight article incorrectly??? But you haven't even been able to cite the article yourself? And yet you challenge me to prove somthing about an article you, yourself can't even source ???? Sheese! That government school really did a job you! Poor hapless victim.!

>>And if you wish to think that the only response of Bill Clinton's to Islamic fanatics was to bomb Serbia I can't change you mind.

It's not what I think, but what you ascribe to Ann Coulter as a "lie". It is not a lie -- it is an opinion!!! Get it???

Nah!


>>On Bill O'Reilly, I believe that he claimed a show he had left had one to awards that it had not because he mistook the name of the award.

Yeah, right. He made a mistake. He mistook a Peabody Award for some other kind of award and he admitted his mistake. But a mistake is not a lie. Perhaps you need to get a dictionary and look up the words "Lie," "Opinion" and "mistake". Then report back.

Hopless.

-- Rouser