Wacko Conspiracies

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

I really don’t want to have to even bring this shit up but people need to DEMAND answers and not just accept the government solely on their word. The main rationale for calling people wacko, nut job, conspiracy theorists is that this is America (or Britain) so it’s beyond the realm of possibility.

So, as an example - everyone knows the OKC bombing was a single fertilizer bomb in a rental truck right?

Since certain people are tired of “crazy talk”, rain, Zap, hedo, Marmadogg, anybody - please listen to this sound file and give us “tin foil hat brigade” the rational explanation that we’re too dumb to grasp. That way you guys can help put this kind of crazy talk to rest and shut people like me up.

So sit tight people, do not be alarmed by what you just heard - the “truth squad” will momentarily explain it all away.

Thanks in advance guys!

JTF

2

Nothin’ yet?

Letter from Gen. Partin to U.S. Sen. Trent Lott:

Benton K. Partin - Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)
8908 Captains Row
Alexandria, Virginia 22308
703-780-7652
July 30, 1995

Sen. Trent Lott
United States Senate
487 Senate Russell Office Building
Washington, DC 205102403

Dear Sen. Lott:

The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.

Weapons Experience: I do not offer such an analytical conclusion lightly. I have spent 25 years in research, design, development, test and management of weapons development. This included: handson work at the Ballistic Research Laboratories; Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, and ultimately management responsibility for almost every nonnuclear weapon device in the Air Force (at the Air Force System command, Air Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) levels). I was also the first chairman of the OSD joint service Air Munitions Requirements and Development Committee. (A more detailed resume appears at Tab 1.)

Observations in Oklahoma City: To verify earlier analysis, I visited Oklahoma City during the last week of June. There I had the opportunity to view hundreds of photographs taken throughout the cleanup operation as the layers of debris were cleared away. The photos present irrefutable evidence that at least four demolition charges were set off at four critical columns of the reinforced concrete structure at the floor level of the third floor.

Conclusion: Based on my experience in weapons development and bomb damage analysis, and on my review of all evidence available, I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb. The total incompatibility of this pattern of destruction with a single truck bomb lies in the simple, incontrovertible fact that some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed if the damage were caused solely by a truck bomb, and, conversely, some of the columns were left standing that should have collapsed if the damage had been caused solely by the truck bomb.

It is my hope and request that, as a Member of Congress, you will support a Congressional investigation to determine the true initiators of this bombing, which could not have occurred the way in which it has been portrayed as having happened. [b]Further, it is requested that you defer action and reserve judgment on so called antiterrorism legislation that has serious civil liberties implications, and which would not be passed except for the Oklahoma City bombing until the causes of the Oklahoma City disaster are determined by independent investigators.

Both the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Trade Center in New York (See New York Times, October 28, 1993, p. A1) show evidence of a counterterrorism sting gone wrong.[/b]

No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a counterterrorism sting operation, sabotage or terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.

If an aircraft crashed because of a bomb, or a counterterrorism sting or an FAA Controller error, the FAA would not be permitted to gather and bury the evidence. The National Transportation Safety Board would have been called in to conduct an investigation and where possible every piece of debris would have been collected and arrayed to determine cause of failure.

To remove all ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementary demolition charges, the FBI should be required to release the high quality surveillance color TV camera tape of the Murrah building bombing on April 19, 1995.

It is my observation that the effort required to bomb the A. P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City pales in comparison with the effort to cover up evidence in Oklahoma and the media’s withholding of vital information from the American people.

Sincerely yours,

Benton K. Partin
Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)
BKP:aw
Enclosure
http://tinyurl.com/8tojs

REPEAT:

[b]"Further, it is requested that you defer action and reserve judgment on so called antiterrorism legislation that has serious civil liberties implications, and which would not be passed except for the Oklahoma City bombing until the causes of the Oklahoma City disaster are determined by independent investigators.

Both the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Trade Center in New York (See New York Times, October 28, 1993, p. A1) show evidence of a counterterrorism sting gone wrong."

“It is my observation that the effort required to bomb the A. P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City pales in comparison with the effort to cover up evidence in Oklahoma and the media’s withholding of vital information from the American people.”[/b]

  • Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) Benton K. Partin

Get it?

3

I’m proud to say I don’t think like you.

4

if the government did this then what’s their motivation and how do you know that’s their motivation?

what civil liberties have been lost due to anti-terrorism? i can think of a few that we’re losing due to liberal bleeding hearts.

5

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I’m proud to say I don’t think like you.[/quote]

That’s great, then you can help me!

As you can tell I’m not too bright, I need someone with your wisdom and intellect to help explain to me what they’re talking about in the clip.

I mean, didn’t the ONE truck bomb already go off? They’re talking about 3 and 4 bombs still INSIDE the building. Now how would McVeigh and Nichols get those into the federal building? Maybe it was someone else! Wait no, it couldn’t have been because they were the only two involved.

Arrrrgh dammit, I give up! It’s no use, your just going to have to explain it to me.

(btw, try and dumb it down for me a little, don’t use a lotta big words and stuff)

6

Are there any actual television clips of this? I’d like to see which reporters were reporting it.

7

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
if the government did this then what’s their motivation and how do you know that’s their motivation?

what civil liberties have been lost due to anti-terrorism? i can think of a few that we’re losing due to liberal bleeding hearts.[/quote]

Directly as a result of OKC, Clinton passed the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”

Everytime something happens, they expand the definition of terrorism and give more and more power to law enforcement to monitor US citizens.

People accept this more readily because they’re scared after a terror event. Just like British citizens rejected the national ID, now it will probably get passed because of this latest event. Now they’ll need it to get on the subway or a bus, etc. You hear them talking already about needing to tighten security. Inch by inch.

This is all fine, but like OKC, it’s obvious something is very wrong about the official story. It’s unnerving to think legislation had been passed in direct response to this event when you realize what it means that bombs were INSIDE a federal building.

8

[quote]doogie wrote:
Are there any actual television clips of this? I’d like to see which reporters were reporting it. [/quote]

I’m sure there are, I’ll have to do some searching around tomorrow. I’d like to see them too.

9

“Both the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Trade Center in New York (See New York Times, October 28, 1993, p. A1) show evidence of a counterterrorism sting gone wrong.”

Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast
by Ralph Blumenthal
The New York Times
October 28, 1993

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City’s tallest towers.

The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court [on charges of involvement] in that attack.

Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast, he was feuding with th F.B.I.

Supervisor ‘Messed It Up’

After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, “came and messed it up.”

“He requested to meet me in the hotel,” Mr. Salem says of the supervisor.

“He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn’t push for that, we’ll be going building the bomb with a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn’t do that.”

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the Bureau’s failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.

Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him, “He said, I don’t think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York Office to go to Washington, D.C.”

Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem’s account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the ‘New York people’: “Well, of course not, because they don’t want to get their butts chewed.”

10

Although I tend to be skeptical and lie in the middle of the politcal spectrum…I love the right wing guys LOVE to call Ahkams Razor into play and throw away EVERY conspiracy theory because “I believe the least complicated story is the true one” Well folks, maybe the government caught onto the fact that you believe that and is using it against you.

11

OK, so let’s get this straight. You believe that the government attacked it’s own country somehow, just so they could tighten security and monitor everyone more closely? Why? So they can report back to their superiors on planet Zoltan thus making it easier to colonize earth?

Sorry, I don’t see any reason for attacking your own country.

12

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
if the government did this then what’s their motivation and how do you know that’s their motivation?

what civil liberties have been lost due to anti-terrorism? i can think of a few that we’re losing due to liberal bleeding hearts.

Directly as a result of OKC, Clinton passed the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”

Everytime something happens, they expand the definition of terrorism and give more and more power to law enforcement to monitor US citizens.

People accept this more readily because they’re scared after a terror event. Just like British citizens rejected the national ID, now it will probably get passed because of this latest event. Now they’ll need it to get on the subway or a bus, etc. You hear them talking already about needing to tighten security. Inch by inch.

This is all fine, but like OKC, it’s obvious something is very wrong about the official story. It’s unnerving to think legislation had been passed in direct response to this event when you realize what it means that bombs were INSIDE a federal building.[/quote]

Meanwhile, back in London.

Clarke set to rush through emergency arrest powers
By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent
Published: 08 July 2005
Ministers are expected to rush through measures to arrest and detain suspects accused of acts associated with terrorism as an immediate reaction to yesterday’s bombings.

A draft Bill outlined in the Queen’s Speech in May set out plans to create offences to bring more terror suspects before the courts and is expected to lead to convictions for those accused of acts preparatory to terrorism.

Yesterday’s attacks on London will also make it more difficult for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to oppose the introduction of identity cards.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article297645.ece

13

[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
OK, so let’s get this straight. You believe that the government attacked it’s own country somehow, just so they could tighten security and monitor everyone more closely? Why? So they can report back to their superiors on planet Zoltan thus making it easier to colonize earth?

Sorry, I don’t see any reason for attacking your own country.[/quote]

I know you don’t quite get the concept but it’s a political tactic used for thousands of years - it’s a way to control the masses.

But forget about the actual concept for awhile - the official story of the OKC bombing was a single bomb left outside in a rental truck. Did you listen to the clip? This is also backed up by (Ret) BRIGIADIER GENERAL Benton K. Partin. (among many others)

The almost undisputed fact is the official story is made up. Why do YOU think they would do that?

14

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Let’s speed right down to this little gem:

Exactly how would the government be “controlling the masses” by blowing up one of it’s own buildings? Also, since that time how has the government gained further control over us?

[quote]the official story is made up. Why do YOU think they would do that?
[/quote]

I think the onus is on you to tell us why they would do that.

Correct me if I’m wrong; arn’t you also the guy who defends liberalism on this forum? I may have you confused with someone else so forgive me if I’m wrong.

15

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Just like British citizens rejected the national ID, now it will probably get passed because of this latest event. Now they’ll need it to get on the subway or a bus, etc. You hear them talking already about needing to tighten security. Inch by inch.
[/quote]

Sorry, but the majority of people here did and still do support a national ID card, largely due to our complete collapse of border controls.

The only people bemoaning the ID card are those that consider themselves “better” than everyone else, and thus beyond suspicion.

16

I don’t know who is more blind - those of us who chose to look at the facts that are ppresented, and assume that everyone involved has the slightest hint of human decency, of folks like JTF who think that the government’s dirty hands are at the root of everything that goes wrong - even in London.

If you stay on the fringes long enough and preach your conspiracy theory loud enough, there will always be those that believe you. Not because of any proof, but because they are as mindless as you accuse normal, right thinking citizens of being.

17

[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
OK, so let’s get this straight. You believe that the government attacked it’s own country somehow, just so they could tighten security and monitor everyone more closely? Why? So they can report back to their superiors on planet Zoltan thus making it easier to colonize earth?

Sorry, I don’t see any reason for attacking your own country.[/quote]

Ah, shoot, I don’t have my history books by me and I just woke up so I can’t remember details. Somebody please help fill it in. But in the 1930’s, Hitler’s men burned down a government builing in Germany, blaming it on the Commies. The peole got scared, called a national emergancy, Hitler showed a stand strong against the reds and the people put thier faith in him.

I don’t agree or disagree with some of the above threads, but you must look at it critically. Come on guys, you are the same people who are skeptical about every supplement add on the market, looking for other sources to verify the information. The real world is like that
to, putting events in fancy wrappers, making it something you want to buy.

In the '50s, we had the red scare, the McArthy witch hunts. If somebody mentioned the word ‘red’, it didn’t matter what civil rights were violated, the so called red was dealt with. The word ‘terrorist’ is the new witch hunt. You take a word that puts fear into America and has a very loose definition.
Everybody can agree we don’t want terrorists here. Now, as soon as somebody has an anti-establishment idea,
call them a terrorist and everybody wants to persecute them.

18

Thats it…keep trying to bring the focus on the Oklahoma City bombing 11 years later because it fits your agenda.

In fact, lets completely ignore the islamic radicals slaughtering people throughout the world. Maybe they don’t even exist and the capitalist pigs and Zionists are actually the ones running around setting off bombs, crashing planes, cutting off heads etc.

19

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
if the government did this then what’s their motivation and how do you know that’s their motivation?

what civil liberties have been lost due to anti-terrorism? i can think of a few that we’re losing due to liberal bleeding hearts.

Directly as a result of OKC, Clinton passed the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”

Everytime something happens, they expand the definition of terrorism and give more and more power to law enforcement to monitor US citizens.

People accept this more readily because they’re scared after a terror event. Just like British citizens rejected the national ID, now it will probably get passed because of this latest event. Now they’ll need it to get on the subway or a bus, etc. You hear them talking already about needing to tighten security. Inch by inch.

This is all fine, but like OKC, it’s obvious something is very wrong about the official story. It’s unnerving to think legislation had been passed in direct response to this event when you realize what it means that bombs were INSIDE a federal building.[/quote]

isn’t that where we’re headed anyway. imagine it’s year 2500, how much of civilization do you think is going to be one giant computer? how much already is?

so we actually haven’t lost any civil liberties due to antiterrorism? we’ve just had a change of environment? civil liberties are things like the ability to own one’s own property, celebrate one’s own beliefs, defend one’s own possessions. i’ve seen zero civil liberties be disrupted due to antiterrorism (although, the proliferation of technology doesn’t pose well for human posterity).

20

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Although I tend to be skeptical and lie in the middle of the politcal spectrum…I love the right wing guys LOVE to call Ahkams Razor into play and throw away EVERY conspiracy theory because “I believe the least complicated story is the true one” Well folks, maybe the government caught onto the fact that you believe that and is using it against you. [/quote]
It’s spelled “Occam,” not “Ahkam.”