Oklahoma Bombing

TeganRainIsGod

Did McVeigh really do it or was it ''The Man''?

bonkey

What's your own opinion?

Diogenes

Considering the fact that many of the victims of the Oklahoma bombing were in a Federal day care facility, do you really think any of the FBI agents (and there were thousands of them) who investigated the bombing would tolerate a cover up?

watty

McVeigh
But the question is Why?

Diogenes

watty wrote: »

McVeigh
But the question is Why?

He was a white supremacist, nutcase, and incredibly anti federal government.

pickarooney

I never got how a truck with a bag of fertiliser parked across the road was supposed to blow up an entire building. It makes no sense.

Diogenes

Okay McVeigh timed the bombing to coincidence with the 2nd anniversary of the Waco siege.

The van was loaded with 108 bags of explosive-grade ammonium nitrate fertilizer weighing 50 pounds three drums of liquid nitromethane, several crates of explosive Tovex, seventeen bags of ammonium nitrate and spools of shock tube and cannon fuse .

This was not a small van.

Diogenes

pickarooney wrote: »

I never got how a truck with a bag of fertiliser parked across the road was supposed to blow up an entire building. It makes no sense.

It also damaged buildings within a 16 block radius. Mc Veigh's intention was to kill as many human beings as possible.

meglome

pickarooney wrote: »

I never got how a truck with a bag of fertiliser parked across the road was supposed to blow up an entire building. It makes no sense.

When a bomb blows out the lower main supports of the building then it makes perfect sense, which it did.

jonbravo

just wondering does anyone see a connection between 9/11 and the oklahoma bombing!?
and i dont mean a connection between the two crimes[ as in who done it] but a connection between the bombing themselfs or the way it was carried out!!

meglome

jonbravo wrote: »

just wondering does anyone see a connection between 9/11 and the oklahoma bombing!?
and i dont mean a connection between the two crimes[ as in who done it] but a connection between the bombing themselfs or the way it was carried out!!

Bombs?

Trail_Blazer

I believe McVeigh was responsible for the OKC tragedy.

I believe 9/11 was a mixture of complete & utter negligence and that of an inside job. I believe there WERE bombs in the WTC buildings' basements that went off. That coupled with the planes hitting, brought them down. Essentially a controlled demolition right in front of everyone - Also would love to know how WTC Building 7 went down, if there WEREN'T bombs inside.

squod

Anyone else here ever seen the footage of wako burned by atf tanks.

I seen it some years back on comedian Bill Hicks old website, it was shown on cable tv in the US only apparently.

Diogenes

Trail_Blazer wrote: »

I believe McVeigh was responsible for the OKC tragedy.

I believe 9/11 was a mixture of complete & utter negligence and that of an inside job. I believe there WERE bombs in the WTC buildings' basements that went off.

The building collaspe started at the point of impact not at the basement.

That coupled with the planes hitting, brought them down. Essentially a controlled demolition right in front of everyone -

Have you ever hear of a building rigged for demoltion while it was occupied?

Also would love to know how WTC Building 7 went down, if there WEREN'T bombs inside.

I take it you haven't make yourself aware of the NIST report in the WTC7 collapse. Massive structural damage from falling debris after WTC 1&2 collapse combined with massive fires that went unchecked for hours.

Diogenes

squod wrote: »

Anyone else here ever seen the footage of wako burned by atf tanks.

I seen it some years back on comedian Bill Hicks old website, it was shown on cable tv in the US only apparently.

Bill Hicks had a website in 1993? Really?

uprising

Please read this man's credentials :
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6688
Brigadier General Benton K. Partin,
Its quiet impressive, "In January 1969 General Partin was assigned special duty in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the first Chairman of the Department of Defense Air Munition Requirements and Development Committee."
Do you think you know more than this man about bombs, munitions, etc?

Well I don't think you do!, now will you look at this VIDEO, actually I'll save you time, go to 1:10:20 on the video.

NOW THE HARD BIT, LISTEN TO WHAT THIS MAN HAS TO SAY!.

uprising

squodAnyone else here ever seen the footage of wako burned by atf tanks.

I seen it some years back on comedian Bill Hicks old website, it was shown on cable tv in the US only apparently.

Diogenes wrote: »

Bill Hicks had a website in 1993? Really?

I dont know if he did or not, but here's anotherVIDEO for you, and again please, please, please look at it, take it in, think, reflect, watch it again, WAKE UP!

ihatewallies

Trail_Blazer wrote: »

I believe McVeigh was responsible for the OKC tragedy.

I believe 9/11 was a mixture of complete & utter negligence and that of an inside job. I believe there WERE bombs in the WTC buildings' basements that went off. That coupled with the planes hitting, brought them down. Essentially a controlled demolition right in front of everyone - Also would love to know how WTC Building 7 went down, if there WEREN'T bombs inside.

you forgot the bit about Elvis Presley crashing that UFO into the back of the WTC. The film was destroyed by Israeli agents apparently, dressed as nuns.

uprising

ihatewallies wrote: »

you forgot the bit about Elvis Presley crashing that UFO into the back of the WTC. The film was destroyed by Israeli agents apparently, dressed as nuns.

Seems you forgot to look at some serious facts, instead you resort to "your" typical conspiracy theories, aliens, ufo's, godzilla, whatever.

Can you add some common sense and intelligence to your posts, possibly try to explain why you think somebody else's opinions are not to be believed, rather than your silly ramblings of a ******(

the thing you hate

).

ihatewallies

Uprising is asking for common sense.

uprising

ihatewallies wrote: »

Uprising is asking for common sense.

YES, PLEASE

ihatewallies

The whole 9/11 CT has been utterly debunked.

The information is easily available.

But one point I especially like comes from George Galloway.

Galloway is not noted for his support of Bush (described Bush and cronies as more devious and evil than the Borgias)

Galloway: "We're supposed to believe that Bush and the CIA could organise and keep quiet for ever thousands of agents and officials, in order to plan and execute the mass murders of 9/11, but when they had control of Iraq, couldn't even arrange for weapons of mass destruction to be found there to save their credibility"

He also said: " The 9/11 CTs are actually helping Bush because they make Bush opponents looks like looneys"

uprising

ihatewallies wrote: »

The whole 9/11 CT has been utterly debunked.

The information is easily available.

But one point I especially like comes from George Galloway.

Galloway is not noted for his support of Bush (described Bush and cronies as more devious and evil than the Borgias)

Galloway: "We're supposed to believe that Bush and the CIA could organise and keep quiet for ever thousands of agents and officials, in order to plan and execute the mass murders of 9/11, but when they had control of Iraq, couldn't even arrange for weapons of mass destruction to be found there to save their credibility"

He also said: " The 9/11 CTs are actually helping Bush because they make Bush opponents looks like looneys"

George Galloway has nothing to do with 9/11, why bring up something totally irrelivent, AGAIN I ask for some intelligent input.

"The whole 9/11 CT has been utterly debunked. The information is easily available." by i hate wallies.

Nothing has been utterly debunked, you have been utterly debunked, please explain how in a forum about 9/11, this is actually about the "oklahoma bombing".

Penn

uprising wrote: »

George Galloway has nothing to do with 9/11, why bring up something totally irrelivent, AGAIN I ask for some intelligent input.

"The whole 9/11 CT has been utterly debunked. The information is easily available." by i hate wallies.

Nothing has been utterly debunked, you have been utterly debunked, please explain how in a forum about 9/11, this is actually about the "oklahoma bombing".

George Galloway has nothing to do with 9/11. Neither do we. Does that mean nobodies opinions are valid? Galloway came up with a good point regarding 9/11, and it was posted here because a previous poster tried to compare the Oklahoma bombings to 9/11.

I agree though, there are plenty of threads about 9/11 and there seems to be no connection whatsoever between 9/11 and this topic.

I haven't viewed your video as I'm in work. I'll try catch it later. I'd also like to point out that I know very very little about this topic, so you can be assured I'll view it without any preconceived ideas

ihatewallies

I've no interest in getting into a debate about 9/11

As I said for those who don't know there is a lot of info easily available on the net.

There is NO person of any real credibility who believes in the 9/11 CT.

I do in fact know the issue thoroughly having studied it previously.
I know all the arguments re the collapse of the buildings, the 3rd building that collapsed, the plane that hit the Pentagon, passenger IDs etc etc

The debunking evidence is sensible and 100% thorough. It makes the CTs look more silly and actually would convince any reasonable person that the attack was as specified on the tin. i.e. Al Qaida.

But again, IF it was a CIA operation, that implies that all the world's major leaders are in on it as they, through their own intelligence agencies would be a bit better placed that net geeks to spot real holes in the official story.

If you have to resort to the idea that all world leaders are involved in the conspiracy.......
I think you need to have a bit of a 'reality check'. Why would they all help out Bush etc etc?

Nobody takes the CTs seriously and never will on this issue.
On the other hand it is serious that anyone would ascribe this level of malice to the collective political leadership of the planet.
It show a pathological detachment from reality.

Politicians do many wrong things, some more than others, when the perception grows that big mistakes are made (and Iraq was a very big mistake) then that tends to find a mirror in more 'fragile' personalities who go to the other extreme.
Very sad for them, but not a problem in the bigger scale of things.

I'm done with this topic now.

uprising

ihatewallies wrote: »

I've no interest in getting into a debate about 9/11

As I said for those who don't know there is a lot of info easily available on the net.

There is NO person of any real credibility who believes in the 9/11 CT.

I do in fact know the issue thoroughly having studied it previously.
I know all the arguments re the collapse of the buildings, the 3rd building that collapsed, the plane that hit the Pentagon, passenger IDs etc etc

The debunking evidence is sensible and 100% thorough. It makes the CTs look more silly and actually would convince any reasonable person that the attack was as specified on the tin. i.e. Al Qaida.

But again, IF it was a CIA operation, that implies that all the world's major leaders are in on it as they, through their own intelligence agencies would be a bit better placed that net geeks to spot real holes in the official story.

If you have to resort to the idea that all world leaders are involved in the conspiracy.......
I think you need to have a bit of a 'reality check'. Why would they all help out Bush etc etc?

Nobody takes the CTs seriously and never will on this issue.
On the other hand it is serious that anyone would ascribe this level of malice to the collective political leadership of the planet.
It show a pathological detachment from reality.

Politicians do many wrong things, some more than others, when the perception grows that big mistakes are made (and Iraq was a very big mistake) then that tends to find a mirror in more 'fragile' personalities who go to the other extreme.
Very sad for them, but not a problem in the bigger scale of things.

I'm done with this topic now.

Dont go running off just yet!
I know as I pointed out this is about oklahoma, not 9/11, yet I feel I must address some of your points.

1) There is NO person of any real credibility who believes in the 9/11 CT.

Can you name me a few credible people who can prove that the official story is FACT?
I'll get a list of credible people who say it's impossible for the official version to be true and put in all the links etc, on a forum about 9/11.

2) The debunking evidence is sensible and 100% thorough.

No it is not, its bullsh1t, evidence removed and buried, many, many facts totally ignored in the 9/11 commission.

3) If you have to resort to the idea that all world leaders are involved in the conspiracy.......I think you need to have a bit of a 'reality check'.

I have a problem with this one, are you reading my post's?, really? are you?.
How did you come to the conclusion that I resorted to such an idea?, please before you run off, just point me to where I resorted to the idea that all world leaders are involved in the conspiracy.....
You my friend need to do the "reality check", even here in a short forum your imagination has come up with what I've just said regarding point 3.

meglome

uprising wrote: »

Please read this man's credentials :
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6688
Brigadier General Benton K. Partin,
Its quiet impressive, "In January 1969 General Partin was assigned special duty in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the first Chairman of the Department of Defense Air Munition Requirements and Development Committee."
Do you think you know more than this man about bombs, munitions, etc?

Well I don't think you do!, now will you look at this VIDEO, actually I'll save you time, go to 1:10:20 on the video.

NOW THE HARD BIT, LISTEN TO WHAT THIS MAN HAS TO SAY!.

I listened. Now he's absolutely correct about one thing the damage to the building is way more than you would expect with the size of this bomb, directly anyway. The Murrah Building has one thing in common with the WTC7 building, a design flaw which made it more susceptible to collapse.



Look at the ground floor supports, there are far fewer than the floors above. The bomb was next to these and once these were blown out the building simply collapsed. There's no great mystery.

nullzero

meglome wrote: »

I listened. Now he's absolutely correct about one thing the damage to the building is way more than you would expect with the size of this bomb, directly anyway. The Murrah Building has one thing in common with the WTC7 building, a design flaw which made it more susceptible to collapse.



Look at the ground floor supports, there are far fewer than the floors above. The bomb was next to these and once these were blown out the building simply collapsed. There's no great mystery.

To be honest, if a building had that great a flaw in how it's weight was distributed it wouldn't have passed the planning stage.
When a building has such a feature at the front there has to be sufficient provision to make sure that it isn't going to affect the structural intregrity of the building.
Looking at one picture doesn't onclusivly prove what you are saying.
If you were able to obtain a .dwg file containing the plans of the building and then be able to examine how the structural engineers designed it then it might possible to assertain whether or not your theory holds water, until then it remains fairly dubious and to be honest, when making claims about a buildings structural integrity you do need a lot of information on that building and a good working knowledge of structural engineering etc...
If you can provide that info I'll be all ears.

Penn

nullzero wrote: »

To be honest, if a building had that great a flaw in how it's weight was distributed it wouldn't have passed the planning stage.
When a building has such a feature at the front there has to be sufficient provision to make sure that it isn't going to affect the structural intregrity of the building.
Looking at one picture doesn't onclusivly prove what you are saying.
If you were able to obtain a .dwg file containing the plans of the building and then be able to examine how the structural engineers designed it then it might possible to assertain whether or not your theory holds water, until then it remains fairly dubious and to be honest, when making claims about a buildings structural integrity you do need a lot of information on that building and a good working knowledge of structural engineering etc...
If you can provide that info I'll be all ears.

But these systems are designed to maintain the structural integrity of the building in certain situations (times of overloading, fire resistance etc). But the blast of a bomb, if certain key members were weakened, the entire structural integrity is compromised. Then, depending on the loading, connections etc, loads are transferred to other members which weren't designed to take these loads (even with the saftey factors applied) which causes these members to fail too.

Buildings are designed to carry the necessary weight, with additional loading as a saftey factor, to ensure it doesn't collapse. But a bomb damaging key structural elements negates that.

uprising

meglome wrote: »

I listened. Now he's absolutely correct about one thing the damage to the building is way more than you would expect with the size of this bomb, directly anyway. The Murrah Building has one thing in common with the WTC7 building, a design flaw which made it more susceptible to collapse.



Look at the ground floor supports, there are far fewer than the floors above. The bomb was next to these and once these were blown out the building simply collapsed. There's no great mystery.

Look at the ground floor supports from that picture?, so these columns we see on the ground floor are actually THE supports,

In due respect the building didn't collapse, the architect actually wanted to repair the building, as most of it was still sound, the govt demolished it with explosives.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BEFORE YOU COME TO YOUR CONCLUSIONS
Because your getting more silly as this goes on.

Heres a short video, which contradicts the one bomb in the van, these are live from the day in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk

uprising

uprising wrote: »

In due respect the building didn't collapse, the architect actually wanted to repair the building, as most of it was still sound, the govt demolished it with explosives.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BEFORE YOU COME TO YOUR CONCLUSIONS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Murrah_Building_Before_Demolition.JPG
Are we talking about the same building here?

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Murrah_Building_Before_Demolition.JPG
Are we talking about the same building here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk

Yes that exact building, what was left standing was structurally sound, thats why they needed a demolition company to take the rest of it down.
The architect wanted to repair it.

uprising

uprising wrote: »

Yes that exact building, what was left standing was structurally sound, thats why they needed a demolition company to take the rest of it down.
The architect wanted to repair it.

Yea cause they just let buildings fall down when they're structurally unsound.
No need for a safe controlled demolition at all.

But it's really just semantics you're arguing now.

Penn

Repairing a building like that would be far more expensive and complicated than what would be feasible. Even though most of what was left was structurally sound, the amount of work which would have to have been done in order to rebuild the rest and tie it into the original is ridiculous.

And I'm not quite sure how 'structurally sound' the rest of it would have been. I'd say even beams and columns still standing there could have been weakened by the event, and their structural capability compromised. They may be standing there, but undertaking works to rebuild the rest and tie it into the original doesn't sound right to me

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

Yea cause they just let buildings fall down when they're structurally unsound.
No need for a safe controlled demolition at all.

But it's really just semantics you're arguing now.

Watch the video a page or two back I posted, I mean actually watch it, then come back with some informative information about how its all lies and BS, I'm off out now, will be back later.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060221_oklahoma_city_bombing/

ihatewallies

kjndsib897y934ubfi4b

meglome

uprising wrote: »

Look at the ground floor supports from that picture?, so these columns we see on the ground floor are actually THE supports,

In due respect the building didn't collapse, the architect actually wanted to repair the building, as most of it was still sound, the govt demolished it with explosives.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BEFORE YOU COME TO YOUR CONCLUSIONS
Because your getting more silly as this goes on.

Heres a short video, which contradicts the one bomb in the van, these are live from the day in question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk

So I watched the video, what's your point?

No one is saying the bomb caused all the damage, well other than the CT's maybe. The bomb blew out the main supports and lifted some of the floors. Then that whole section just collapsed, there really is no mystery. The news footage is irrelevant as it's typical of any event of this nature in that the news reports are confused initially and are soon retracted as the facts are known. Why don't we look at the many news stories that don't mention other bombs as none were actually found?

Your whole point about the building being demolished afterwards is irrelevant to this discussion. They took it down and built a memorial garden, it doesn't matter what the architect thought in that situation.

robtri

The damage is expectant of what a 6500 pound bomb can do...

with the buldings structural supports laid out as they are , it is very possible that a bomb of this size would take them out,
if you want to see what a 6500 pound homemade bomb looks like
google, 1996 manchester bombings.....

bonkey

nullzero wrote: »

To be honest, if a building had that great a flaw in how it's weight was distributed it wouldn't have passed the planning stage.

Flaws are easy to see in hindsight.

In the planning and design stages, on the other hand, its literally impossible to ever say that all eventualities have been considered and catered for.

AS a matter of interest...what size of bomb(s) and for how many columns failing do people routinely test such designs for during this planning stage? What constitutes successful design- that the building remain standing in some shape or form, that it take no indirect damage whatsoever, or some clearly-defined point between the two?

I ask because to know that this type of flaw (should it exist) would be found and eliminated would require knowing the details of what is reviewed, what is tested, and where the line between acceptance and rejection is.

Looking at one picture doesn't onclusivly prove what you are saying.
If you were able to obtain a .dwg file containing the plans of the building and then be able to examine how the structural engineers designed it then it might possible to assertain whether or not your theory holds water, until then it remains fairly dubious and to be honest, when making claims about a buildings structural integrity you do need a lot of information on that building and a good working knowledge of structural engineering etc...
If you can provide that info I'll be all ears.

This argument is as valid for the claims that the building should have stood up to the bombing, as it is for the claims that the building behaved consistent with the bomb effects.

Given that you haven't applied this criticism to uprising's exhortation of a youtube video, can I take it that the video presents this level in detail? Although I'm usually wary of watching youtubery and suchlike, I'll certainly find time for something that shows the detailed analysis you say is needed to make claims.

bonkey

uprising and ihatewallies - both of you need to calm it down

squod

Diogenes wrote: »

Bill Hicks had a website in 1993? Really?

Some tulip.


So if anyone else has seen more in the series of videos featuring Bill Hicks being interviewed
outside wako, could you post them.
They have historical interest in that they were Bills last television interviews, originally hosted on sacred cow producions website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw1oZ9oSroo

tallus

squod wrote: »

Some tulip.


So if anyone else has seen more in the series of videos featuring Bill Hicks being interviewed
outside wako, could you post them.
They have historical interest in that they were Bills last television interviews, originally hosted on sacred cow producions website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw1oZ9oSroo

Part of Hicks stand up but he talks about Waco. Very interesting stuff.
He starts talking about it at around 2.49c.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ervtEdYckYc

Sorry mods, if this is off topic.

squod

Really cool video, thanks for the post.

Need someone like him around these days eh? Way too many nut-jobs around
I think.

tallus

squod wrote: »

Really cool video, thanks for the post.

Need someone like him around these days eh? Way too many nut-jobs around
I think.

Yeah I agree, I like his stuff.
I bought a media player a few weeks back, (used) and the seller left something like 13cd's worth of Bill Hicks on it. Interesting listening indeed, pity he died so young.

ocianain

There is overwhelming evidence of other actors in the OCB. A woman who never got her just due wrote a tremendous investigative report on the OCB:

http://www.amazon.com/Third-Terrorist-Connection-Oklahoma-Bombing/dp/1595552367/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250121047&sr=1-9

There is evidence McVeigh met 9/11 conspirators in Oklahoma. Government covered this up because, there was evidence long before 9/11 that the US was under attack, it was suppressed until 9/11 made that impossible.

meglome

ocianain wrote: »

There is overwhelming evidence of other actors in the OCB.

Don't suppose you'll be listing this overwhelming 'evidence'?

ocianain wrote: »

There is evidence McVeigh met 9/11 conspirators in Oklahoma. Government covered this up because, there was evidence long before 9/11 that the US was under attack, it was suppressed until 9/11 made that impossible.

How could McVeigh meet these Arabs in 2000 when they began arriving, him being in jail an' all?

And evidence such as the very noticeable bomb attacks on the WTC in 1993 and US embassy's in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya in 1998? You know the ones that killed loads of people and were all over the news.

ocianain

He met the actors in a motel in Oklahoma before the OCB, author fills a book with proof, this is not black helicopter stuff, this is scholarship, she should of won a Pulitzer . Proof include eye witness testimony. The OCB attack was passed off as self inflicted, no foreign entanglement, the 1st WTC bombing was supposed to be the actions of a rouge cleric and was not tied to a concerted action, the Africa campaign was likewise rationalized away, only when the towers fell did the established narrative collapse.

Diogenes

ocianain wrote: »

He met the actors in a motel in Oklahoma before the OCB, author fills a book with proof, this is not black helicopter stuff, this is scholarship, she should of won a Pulitzer . Proof include eye witness testimony.

Then surely she should be able to give us these people's names, and prove how they were connected to the WTC attack.

The OCB attack was passed off as self inflicted, no foreign entanglement, the 1st WTC bombing was supposed to be the actions of a rouge cleric and was not tied to a concerted action,

Nope, sorry. One of the four bombers was Ramzi Yousef, nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Osama Bin Laden's right hand man? Mastermind of 911?
Currently on trial for the attacks. Not a "rogue cleric"

only when the towers fell did the established narrative collapse.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

squod

Diogenes wrote: »

Then surely she should be able to give us these people's names, and prove how they were connected to the WTC attack.



Nope, sorry. One of the four bombers was Ramzi Yousef, nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Osama Bin Laden's right hand man? Mastermind of 911?
Currently on trial for the attacks. Not a "rogue cleric"




That sentence doesn't make sense.

I'd be interested to hear your version of events, if you've time to write them.

ocianain

Diogenes,

1. She does

2. The blind cleric and his mosque in New York was passed off as the brains behind the 1st WTC bombing, at least in America, I saw it on the news and in the print media. The 1st bombing was presented as the actions of rogue individuals, not as part of a concerted action of Al Quieda. The reference to OBL etal in your post is also a non sequiter, 1st bombing in 1993, 2nd in 2001, there can be no causal relationship between the two 8 years before the second happened.

3. It only doesn't make sense to you because, you do not follow my train of thought. Instead of projecting what you think I say (assuming the misunderstanding is inadvertant), or, some strawman if it's intentional, read and comprehend. America and it's interests were under attack since 93, all the attacks were presented by the government and media as non-related events, this narrative collapsed when the towers did, it became too absurd to maintain. Governments routinely lie/dissemble to advance their agenda, in 93 Clinton didn't want to conduct a war against terrorism, so events were presented as the actions of individuals. The Justice Department pursued these events as criminal matters. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, Ceaser lied about his success in Gaul, politicians lie.

To anyone else of a less reactionary/doctrinaire mindset read the book, it's extensively researched, very good investigative journalism.

ocianain

Her website:

http://www.jaynadavis.com/