Domestic Terrorism...Why Warn Us?

[Wrabbit2000]

I have a timely question for general discussion, if anyone has something to add of course.

Why do the leaders of the FBI, DHS and others feel compelled to make their problems into our problems? Why is it, the world they live in where high stress, high stakes and low marital success rates is a given....must become our reality as well? Don't we pay these people specifically to deal with and not trouble US with precisely this sort of thing?

I know it can be hard to remember back, pre-2000 and before our nation entered a state of perpetual war (without a declaration, I might add). If we try though, I know we can turn out thinking back to at least consider what we've lost. Things like the OK-BOMB case in 1995 were not minor by any means and the threats haven't accelerated to any great degree. McVeigh could have added Ricin or something else just to make life miserable for everyone not killed outright. He didn't, and thank goodness...but the point is the same. He could have. Nothing stopped him, and he had to know ....just as his mentors within the fictional Turner Diary book we learned he enjoyed so much, he only had victory or death before him after that day. So why not?

The Why not...or why worry, to be more specific, is why I raise this. The following story is what prompted the question in the first place.

FBI: Militants may be working on plan to strike US

In an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Comey said the militants were "working and, you know, may still be working on an effort to attack the United States or our allies, and looking to do it very, very soon."

Senior U.S. officials have not said whether the group's plots have been disrupted.

Source

Putting aside the common belief among many that Al Qaeda is a ghost and either never existed as such, or is a subsidiary of Uncle Sam...lets assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, they are a fully capable and very pissed off terrorist organization ... and threats like this are entirely real and valid.

WHY tell the public about it? What can we do? What should we do? Everyone who ever will, already watches everything around them in an endless 'condition yellow' situation, following 9/11. Those who don't now, never will anyway. (H.U.A. Syndrome strikes some on a chronic level).

Even the idea of generating fear within the public? I have to ask...after having seen roughly 8 years of it done now (yes..I counted that way intentionally), what even THAT accomplishes beyond wearing down the citizens in mind and morale to the point of becoming a broken people in more ways than we'd likely want to discuss.

Not for the first time..I wonder. I wonder this and I ask you all around here, what you think? Have the people we appointed to carry a degree of paranoia for a living, crossed the line of caution into illness, and chosen to force us all along for their ride into madness? It isn't to suggest real enemies don't exist...because they do. (If NOTHING else...10+ years of bombing them senseless has MADE enemies, whether one believes they previously existed or not). It is to suggest that we spend untold billions to train, equip and field entire agencies for this....so we don't have to live what THEY do in our stead.

What happened to that concept, anyway? What are we still paying these people for?

[Sinny]

IMO, there are two possible ways to view this:

1) Pure arrogance and indifference
2) A lot of the peeps in charge of this shizzle are involved in occultism, and in occultism you have something called 'lesser majic' of which the rules state you ust tell you victims that which you are doing to them.

All those cartoon depictions of 9/11 for example - they told us it was coming, we just didn't 'read' their 'signs'.

I'm all for hearing everyone elses ideas.

[Amaterasu]

I agree with Sinny.  They "warn" Us because They are the Ones creating the "terror" in the first place.  It is all sacrifical ritual.  BTW, McVeigh was a patsy for one of Their stunts.

[Wrabbit2000]

IMO, there are two possible ways to view this:

1) Pure arrogance and indifference
2) A lot of the peeps in charge of this shizzle are involved in occultism, and in occultism you have something called 'lesser majic' of which the rules state you ust tell you victims that which you are doing to them.

All those cartoon depictions of 9/11 for example - they told us it was coming, we just didn't 'read' their 'signs'.

I'm all for hearing everyone elses ideas.

I can't say I ever thought of the second point there. Hmmm... That makes a kind of sense too. It's not anything positive or uplifting as a conclusion, but then, look at the topic and what can we expect, eh?

I lean toward the idea of true mental illness developing in the vacuum of the power structure they have now. I mean, detached doesn't describe the difference between people at the appointment and administrative levels vs. the rank and file of the agencies..let alone us poor schmucks out here in the public, following the ball like a Tennis match without apparent rules.

The Occultism is an interesting take though, especially with some of the groups and owlish meetings these folks are known to favor. There may be something to that? Perhaps generating negative feelings, negative energy and an overall reality based in negative as a guiding rule IS the whole point? In the context of the occult, that would serve it's own ends, wouldn't it?

@ Amaterasu

Well, variety is the spice of life and those different strokes from different folks make the world go 'round. So, it's no surprise that we wouldn't agree on this. As far as Timmy McVeigh? It was only by the grace of God and fate that I was in school for my CDL the morning he dropped the federal building in OKC. Had I still been drifting without a way to verify my whereabouts that day? I may have become his "Unsub #2" by lack of ability to prove otherwise and what even I had to admit was an uncanny resemblance (like a mirror image) for one of the 3 main sketches being used back then.

I have absolutely no question in my mind Timmy got what Timmy deserved, and I'd have thrown the switch in the death chamber personally on that one, had I been given any opportunity to volunteer. I do believe, with most of the residents of Oklahoma (it seems) that Timmy was by no means ALONE...but that was his sorry butt parking the truck and my only regret is that they took him alive at all. Then again....I don't even play at being unbiased to the OK-BOMB case. I'm not and never will be. I was too close to it for my own comfort or well being. I and thousands of others who just happened to bear a visual similarity to someone they later insisted, didn't even exist.

[Amaterasu]

@ Amaterasu

Well, variety is the spice of life and those different strokes from different folks make the world go 'round. So, it's no surprise that we wouldn't agree on this. As far as Timmy McVeigh? It was only by the grace of God and fate that I was in school for my CDL the morning he dropped the federal building in OKC. Had I still been drifting without a way to verify my whereabouts that day? I may have become his "Unsub #2" by lack of ability to prove otherwise and what even I had to admit was an uncanny resemblance (like a mirror image) for one of the 3 main sketches being used back then.

Uhhhh, You are aware that there were bombs found in the building, that analysis shows that there is no way the "truck bomb" would have done more than break a few windows, right?  Or did You miss these fact?

I have absolutely no question in my mind Timmy got what Timmy deserved, and I'd have thrown the switch in the death chamber personally on that one, had I been given any opportunity to volunteer.

Then You are willing to kill someOne (against the first Law of Ethics) without having all the info (or so it seems).

I do believe, with most of the residents of Oklahoma (it seems) that Timmy was by no means ALONE...but that was his sorry butt parking the truck and my only regret is that they took him alive at all. Then again....I don't even play at being unbiased to the OK-BOMB case. I'm not and never will be. I was too close to it for my own comfort or well being. I and thousands of others who just happened to bear a visual similarity to someone they later insisted, didn't even exist.

Perhaps it is that bias, cultivated in the (controlled) media, that has allowed You to blame the patsy and (perhaps) block out, avoid, not look at anything that challenges that idea You have of who did what on that day.  Just sayin.

[Wrabbit2000]

Uhhhh, You are aware that there were bombs found in the building, that analysis shows that there is no way the "truck bomb" would have done more than break a few windows, right?  Or did You miss these fact?

Of the things never proven in court (or alleged openly, that I recall...tho I could be wrong on the last Oklahoma State trial.), bombs pre-planted inside the building are the last I'd call credible. It's just me perhaps, but I do recall the things about that day like it happened last week for the impression it left. I don't see anything that couldn't have been done by the jumbo-size Anfo bomb he had, and actually, it could have been markedly worse with nothing more added if he'd known better what he was doing. Thankfully, he didn't, and not everyone inside the building died by it coming straight down on them. Frankly, it's amazing it didn't fall from the bomb he did park there. Fate is odd in that way during disasters.

If someone did plant explosives, then they didn't know their job worth a wooden nickle. The most obvious point of that is, again, comparing with Middle Eastern and other file photos of truck bombs and the aftermath? They wouldn't have/didn't add much, if anything to the damage level.

Then You are willing to kill someOne (against the first Law of Ethics) without having all the info (or so it seems).

Nope... Absolutely not. However, as I said, if there is one case of a high profile nature in the last 25 years that I know and know well for what matters in events? It's this one. I lived through the time of the events, and had FBI agents thinking, if only for a short time, I may have been his partner in the bomb. Now, I came to learn that roughly 10,000 other individuals were called in, as I was, and given the same interviews to fish for a hit.

However....when you're called in a place no one even knows you're staying, on a number in no way associated with you, casually or otherwise? It's the kind of 'reach out and touch' you get a bit obsessed with learning more behind. That's how the feebs called and 'requested' my presence in their office prompty the following morning. That was about the longest night of my life, and I still swear someone was watching the little farm road I was on at the time, just in case I was a cold hit in a big net. (shivers)

I have very mixed feelings about the Death Penalty, by how it's enforced or not enforced, to be specific. A lot of corruption and a lot of highly selective use makes it ...something other than it ever should be. The Innocence Project is actually an effort I support, strongly. Having said that? I never met that little nutcase. He still could have gotten me killed in the wrong scenario playing out for how I did come to be connected to such an act of horror. Yes...I'd push the plunger on him and Terre Haute wouldn't have been that far a drive to make, either.

Perhaps it is that bias, cultivated in the (controlled) media, that has allowed You to blame the patsy and (perhaps) block out, avoid, not look at anything that challenges that idea You have of who did what on that day.  Just sayin.

McVeigh was connected to Middle Eastern folk in the general area and immediately prior to that bombing. In fact, if one looks a bit deeper, the information on who and what they were gets a whole lot more specific. The times fit, the identification would fit for motivation and Clinton was absolutely, positively adverse to more war over almost anything. That could have forced one ..or the ending of what started in 1990, anyway. Depends on how true the ID's on those guys are. We'll never know at this point.

McVeigh was also hung up on the Waco tragedy and vengeance. Nothing patsy about that and he was both trained in basics by his military background as well as well motivated by hate by that stage. Something he personally seemed to make no real effort at hiding.


.....Truth be told? I think FBI, ATF or both were running an operation against McVeigh, Nichols and/or the group McVeigh had been spending time with in the Midwest. That was also about the right time for those things to be going on in earnest and both agencies were starting to do odd things around that point anyway.

I think they lost control of their operation, and they lost all track of a VERY big bomb they knew enough to know likely existed...but didn't know enough to be 100% certain. That explains plenty that happened that morning, including the place or displacement of units within certain agencies. Certainty came with a blast that was felt 15 miles away......and those who would have been involved in such a blown op would go to their deathbeds with that secret. Even now.... the empty chairs are a powerful, powerful monument. To ever learn for certain that agencies let that happen by omission of action...would be WORSE than learning a rogue element did it intentionally. At least in my opinion.

[Amaterasu]

I'm going to say that what We were TOLD McVeigh thought or did may or may not be the truth.  Here's info I found, for whatever it is worth:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.php







http://nstarzone.com/OKC.html

http://www.rense.com/general10/30.htm

http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/

There's lots more...

[Wrabbit2000]

I'm going to say that what We were TOLD McVeigh thought or did may or may not be the truth.  Here's info I found, for whatever it is worth:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.php







http://nstarzone.com/OKC.html

http://www.rense.com/general10/30.htm

http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/

There's lots more...

I do appreciate your reply and its interesting to see, but while you go by blogs and media, I generally stick to court transcripts, evidence reports and statements from people who didn't 'research it' but lived it by being on-scene while it was happening. Unfortunately, living so close, that wasn't as hard a thing to come across as I might have hoped.

The fact of the matter here is that you see it one way, I see it quite another and we both have what we believe to be educated opinions on an event neither of us personally lived or have 1st hand knowledge of to contradict. So.... It's back to personal and subjective judgement of sources and life experience to draw from in what we both think happened.

Indeed.. Different strokes for different folks...and just because one of us may be right doesn't make the other wrong, per say. An important distinction these days, in my opinion. After all, in the end, opinions are all it comes down to.

[petrus4]

Why do the leaders of the FBI, DHS and others feel compelled to make their problems into our problems? Why is it, the world they live in where high stress, high stakes and low marital success rates is a given....must become our reality as well? Don't we pay these people specifically to deal with and not trouble US with precisely this sort of thing?

You've already touched on the reason, but I will word it in a slightly different way, for the sake of explanation.

The point is that "terrorism," is not quite what people think it is.  Terrorism is not committed primarily by Islamic actors for the purpose of indiscriminately scaring the West, irrespective of whether the target is governments or civilians.  This, mind you, is what we are supposed to think, but it flatly is not true.

The real story is a lot more nefarious.

Terrorism is waged principally by the American and British governments, and the targets are said countries' domestic populations.  The war is not against Islam; it's against us, the public.

I do not believe that there has been a single major terrorist incident since at least 1990, that was not the work of either the American or British intelligence communities.  The purpose is to continually scare the Western public to such a degree that we actively want fascist government, no longer desire real freedom in any form, and accept a culture of continual, perpetual war.



Not long after finishing smoking tonight, I went into the common room here, and saw the above ridiculous farce on National Geographic.  It was evidently designed to work its' audience into a lather of apocalyptic hysteria about the supposed genuine possibility of an alien invasion.

Then, in conjunction with this, we have Ebola, the amateur gore porn that ISIS have been releasing on Live Leak, the state of the environment, and whatever other pretext the media can come up with for reminding us that we are living during the end of the world, and that we are all royally and completely screwed.



WAR, WAR, WAR, DOOM, DOOM, DOOM, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, WAR, FEAR, WAR, FEAR, WAR, FEAR, DOOM...oh, and did we mention FEAR?

As I've written elsewhere, and I keep writing; there is a consistent pattern here, and it really isn't difficult to recognise.  The goal is to turn you into an utterly mindless, gibbering infant, who spends all of your time either working, glued to the television, or in a foetal position on the floor.  They want you to love Big Brother, fascism, Capitalism, and most especially, continual, ceaseless war.

http://akamat.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/the-purpose-of-war-according-to-george-orwell-1984/

I will post the link to this here, but it is sufficiently insightful that I want to quote it in this very post, as well.

The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society.

From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process — by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute — the machine did raise the living standards of the average humand being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction — indeed, in some sense was the destruction — of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared.

If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste.

But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.

To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.

Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable.

The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built.

In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another.

By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter—set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call 'the proles'.

The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

Read Edward Bellamy's two books, Looking Backward, and Equality.  While they perhaps tragically formed a large part of the inspiration for the Soviet disaster, they are still extremely educational on the topic of post-scarcity economics, given that they involve the fictional projection of a post-scarcity society, based on Victorian technology.  Think of these books as depicting a Steampunk version of Amy's Abundance Paradigm.  Yes, if human nature had been where it needed to be, we could have done it back then.

This is what governments, and the American government in particular are desperate to keep at bay; post-scarcity.  In a post-scarce scenario, every individual person or family could very conceivably have the resources of one contemporary industrial nation, by themselves.  That means, as one example, individual space programs.  Gene Roddenberry also predicted this scenario, but like Bellamy, he was unable to go anywhere near grasping what the genuine magnitude of this change meant, for human society.



"Your seers and poets in exalted moments had seen that death was but a step in life, but this seemed to most of you to have been a hard saying. Nowadays, as life advances toward its close, instead of being shadowed by gloom, it is marked by an excess of impassioned expectancy which would cause the young to envy the old, but for the knowledge that in a little while the same door will be opened to them. In your day the undertone of life seems to have been one of unutterable sadness, which, like the moaning of the sea to those who live near the ocean, made itself audible whenever for a moment the noise and bustle of petty engrossments ceased. Now this undertone is so exultant that we are still to hear it.

"Do you ask what we look for when unnumbered generations shall have passed away? I answer, the way stretches far before us, but the end is lost in light. For twofold is the return of man to God, 'who is our home,' the return of the individual by the way of death, and the return of the race by the fulfillment of its evolution, when the divine secret hidden in the germ shall be perfectly unfolded. With a tear for the dark past, turn we then to the dazzling future, and, veiling our eyes, press forward. The long and weary winter of the race is ended. Its summer has begun. Humanity has burst the chrysalis. The heavens are before it."
        -- Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward.



You've heard the saying that it is always darkest just before the dawn.  To quote Harvey Dent, the dawn is coming...and They don't want it!!!  The cabal and the visible elements of it that we can see, are absolutely desperate to stop it.  They are throwing everything that they possibly can at the screen, to keep us in the state of terror and despair which will also keep us susceptible to their control.

Remember, Wrabbit; the single most important thing, in these people's minds, is to keep you in a state of perpetual fear and hatred.  They don't care what you fear and hate, just as long as you fear and hate something.  Ebola, ISIS, Fukashima, it does not matter.  The goal is always the same.  FEAR.

Don't give it to them.  It will keep us from experiencing a future that is so much better than what they are offering us, that I can hardly begin to describe it.  We all have to try as hard as we can to stay in a state of love; and yes, I know that I myself fail most of the time, as you've probably seen here.  I fall for the deceptive apocalyptic crap as much as anyone else here, and I have other problems as well.

When I am at my best, however, I know what we as a species need to aim for.  We need to stop thinking in terms of "us," and "them," we need to stop fighting each other, and we need to come together if we want to survive.  While it is true that all they are selling us is merely a bad dream, that nightmare is only going to get worse if we don't wake up from it.  The nightmare, however, only needs to last as long as we want it to.

We don't need to violently rebel.  All we need to do is stop being afraid, and mesmerised by the shadow puppet show that the cabal are giving us.  It's an internal change, rather than an external one.

Putting aside the common belief among many that Al Qaeda is a ghost and either never existed as such, or is a subsidiary of Uncle Sam...lets assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, they are a fully capable and very pissed off terrorist organization ... and threats like this are entirely real and valid.

Except they aren't.  You're talking about some of the poorest and most technically illiterate individuals on the face of the planet.  They don't have the resources necessary to commit something like 9/11; and when you look into it and realise that the government was carrying out massive drills at the time, you realise that they could not have possibly done it by themselves, without help.

Bin Laden also was not being funded by the Saudis; he was an outcast among them.  What rich man do you know about, lives in a cave?  It is beyond ridiculous.  The 19 hijackers, we are supposed to believe, were divided into two groups on each of the planes, and were only armed with box cutters.  That means there would have been 9 or 10 of them on each plane, and they didn't even have guns.  On planes that size, the passengers presumably numbered in the hundreds.  They're going to tell me that hundreds of passengers, even terrified civilians, could not have overwhelmed 9 or 10, without guns, in the confined space of an aeroplane?

This is only one angle where the story falls apart.  It falls apart at every possible angle.  It is not credible anywhere, in any respect.  Pancake theory is complete BS.  All of the eyewitness accounts on the day match the secondary effects of thermite.  All.  Of.  Them.



Bin Laden was also reported dead by the Pakistan Observer, in December 2001.

Do you still think the official account of 9/11 is true?

WHY tell the public about it? What can we do?

The only thing the "authorities," want you to do.  Be afraid!

Understand that they do not care primarily, about what your external or physical actions might be.  The only thing they really care about controlling, is your internal or emotional state.  If we are terrified or depressed, they don't need to physically lock us up.  We will do it ourselves!

Even the idea of generating fear within the public? I have to ask...after having seen roughly 8 years of it done now (yes..I counted that way intentionally), what even THAT accomplishes beyond wearing down the citizens in mind and morale to the point of becoming a broken people in more ways than we'd likely want to discuss.

The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the KILLING OUT OF THE WORKER.  Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.

        -- The Protocols of The Learned Elders Of Zion.

What happened to that concept, anyway? What are we still paying these people for?

The agencies that you speak of, have truthfully never had a legitimate purpose, other than the advancement of tyranny.  The Central Intelligence Agency was originally fully intended to be modelled on the Gestapo.  I hate to tell you this, but in the final analysis, America didn't win WW2, Wrabbit.  Hitler might have died; but that ultimately did not stop him.  You only need to look at America today, to know that.




(corrected link to quoted post)

[Amaterasu]

I do appreciate your reply and its interesting to see, but while you go by blogs and media, I generally stick to court transcripts, evidence reports and statements from people who didn't 'research it' but lived it by being on-scene while it was happening. Unfortunately, living so close, that wasn't as hard a thing to come across as I might have hoped.

The fact of the matter here is that you see it one way, I see it quite another and we both have what we believe to be educated opinions on an event neither of us personally lived or have 1st hand knowledge of to contradict. So.... It's back to personal and subjective judgement of sources and life experience to draw from in what we both think happened.

Indeed.. Different strokes for different folks...and just because one of us may be right doesn't make the other wrong, per say. An important distinction these days, in my opinion. After all, in the end, opinions are all it comes down to.

Um...  How much closer to the scene does One need to be than media on the scene as it is unfolding?  And not just one lone reporter was talking about bombs in the building.  They ALL were.  And You doubt the analysis of the "truck bomb's" ability to create what We saw?  Here's a more in depth analysis:

http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport/

Wrabbit, if You don't smell a rat here, if You can't wrap Your head around the possibility that these useless eliters did there to pass the "Anti-terrorist" Act as They did on 9/11 to pass the "Patriot" Act, setting McVeigh up as the patsy, then either You are too emotional and can't go to the logical conclusion, too dim (which I must doubt) or We have a shill in Our midst.  I hate to bring that epithet up here, but its one of these three I see.

[petrus4]

Wrabbit, if You don't smell a rat here, if You can't wrap Your head around the possibility that these useless eliters did there to pass the "Anti-terrorist" Act as They did on 9/11 to pass the "Patriot" Act, setting McVeigh up as the patsy, then either You are too emotional and can't go to the logical conclusion, too dim (which I must doubt) or We have a shill in Our midst.  I hate to bring that epithet up here, but its one of these three I see.

Amy...

It's none of the three.  I often used to read Wrabbit's posts on ATS.  He's a bit mainstream, but he means well and is sincere.

[Wrabbit2000]

Wrabbit, if You don't smell a rat here, if You can't wrap Your head around the possibility that these useless eliters did there to pass the "Anti-terrorist" Act as They did on 9/11 to pass the "Patriot" Act, setting McVeigh up as the patsy, then either You are too emotional and can't go to the logical conclusion, too dim (which I must doubt) or We have a shill in Our midst.  I hate to bring that epithet up here, but its one of these three I see.

Well, not to repeat the last reply, but it hits it. None of the three.

- After nearly 20 years has passed, it isn't emotion. In fact, my experience in getting caught up in that was full of anxiety for 'what could happen...' but turned out to be a lot of worry for nothing in the end. As it happens, I left the agents on good terms, as much as that can ever be said for the situation I was in then.

- I suppose I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier at times. I'll be the first to admit that, and my debate style is as much to learn from what is offered as it is to put forward my own opinion or belief. I don't know that I would use the word dim....but none of us are as clever as we sometimes imagine we are, as I've come to learn in life. (usually the hard way...lol)

- A shill.. Hmm... Well, I want my back pay and benefits if that is the case. I've been getting shorted for a few years if that is my title. Now on one hand, I'll say the place I used to volunteer as staff with is no National Security Agency for checking folks...however, they aren't the rotary club, either. I'm afraid I would have been found out and exposed like a streaker showing up on the wrong day, had that been at all true. On the other hand...the conspiracy community is a rough and very unforgiving place to be at times. You figure I'm good enough to keep up that level of gaming everyone for years on end? I'd be flattered in other circumstances.

You won't fit me into a category or a box or a pigeon hole to describe neatly. I'm just not that sort of bunny. I simply take everything on an individual case by case basis and look at every situation on it's own merits. Just because a last attack may have been an inside job, doesn't mean the next one is or the one before it was. To put it another way, Congress is as corrupt an institution as America has seen, by this point. That doesn't make all 500+ individual men and women equally corrupt to the whole. Everyone on a case by case, and to each, their own set of facts.

Now on Oklahoma City? We both smell a rat. I smell agencies I think ran their own sting operation with a real device or real parts and lost control as well as tracking of their 'gotcha' prop. It then turned into a hell of a lot more than a prop, when sting turned to stung and like several stories we've watched since came VERY CLOSE to doing again? This one truly DID go off the reservation and play out for real. I could be all wrong there....but then, each of us could be wrong in our thoughts.

I merely share my opinion as I've formed it, based on the best info or cause to suspect as I have available to go from on any given event. What more can we do?

[petrus4]

Now on Oklahoma City? We both smell a rat.

OKC was fairly simple.  McVeigh was someone who was looking to hang himself, and the government provided the rope.  McVeigh gave them something they wanted, because by killing him they got to send another message to anyone else who was feeling revolutionary in the country at the time, in addition to the one that was sent at Waco.

Said message was approximately; We know you're thinking about it, but if you try it, we will kill you, your family, and everyone else who has ever known you; so we don't recommend it.

This doesn't mean that I think McVeigh's issues were invalid, for one moment; but as an apparent ex-Marine, he should have been able to see what the likely outcome of his proposed actions was going to be. 

The single main reason why armed revolution isn't going to work in America at this point, is because the only reason why psychopaths are in government currently in the first place, is because most of the public wants them to be.  If you don't believe me on that, go to Reddit and watch the daily, even momentary parade of liberal Good Germans.  What this means is that even if, hypothetically, said psychopaths in office were somehow assassinated, the ovine majority would simply re-elect near-identical psychopaths to replace them.

The people do not want good government.  They don't want autonomy, personal sovereignty, or self-management, for the most part.  As a result, while I will agree that Barry is a smooth talking con artist as much as anyone else, with him, Americans are getting precisely the President they deserve.

I merely share my opinion as I've formed it, based on the best info or cause to suspect as I have available to go from on any given event. What more can we do?

As I said to Amy, I think you have fundamentally good intentions.  You are nowhere near as radical as I am, but that can be mended. *Orcish grin*

[Amaterasu]

I am hoping that You do not take My statement as any kind of accusation.  I too remember You from that other forum, and always had great respect.  I do try to understand why One might reject the evidence that the building was "wired" with at least three bombs, only one of which actually exploded, that the "truck bomb" analysis shows there is no way the column in the central area could sustain such damage as it did from that "truck bomb," and only use "court transcripts" - which are full of only the trial and accusations They brought up - and other stuff the (controlled) media said days to weeks later about who and what McVeigh was.

Why would One do that if One did not want to face the facts?  And if One does not want to face the facts, what other explanation for that unwillingness is there?

I searched for some footage I watched at the time, where a reporter got inside the building and was being shown, by a bomb squad dude, one of the bombs that did not go off...  Like the vid of the 9/11 forensics team complaining that, instead of going to the crime scene and doing Their job as is standard, They were taken to a large basement room somewhere, where a banquet-style table had been set up and a rather small (a wheelbarrow's full roughly) amount of debris was placed on top of the table, and told to do Their job, that OKC bombing vid seems to have been scrubbed.

[Wrabbit2000]

I am hoping that You do not take My statement as any kind of accusation. 

Definitely not taking anything that way. If you recall me from the other site, then you recall I very rarely ever take things in debate or discussion personally, and on those rare occasions? Well..even people with nothing to do with it can't miss it. Subtle isn't one of my well rounded traits. lol.... So no biggy.. We're just chatting.

I do try to understand why One might reject the evidence that the building was "wired" with at least three bombs, only one of which actually exploded, that the "truck bomb" analysis shows there is no way the column in the central area could sustain such damage as it did from that "truck bomb," and only use "court transcripts" - which are full of only the trial and accusations They brought up - and other stuff the (controlled) media said days to weeks later about who and what McVeigh was.

In all fairness, you're starting from the assumption that you have seen and learned from evidence I haven't seen and simply evaluated differently than you have. Now its fair enough to suggest I haven't seen everything. I certainly haven't. I have seen what both the Government's prosecutors and two sets of defense teams have felt was important for both convicting as well as acquitting both McVeigh and Nichols, but that isn't everything. In fact, that situation has enough layers to it, to wonder if even those directly a part of it really know the whole story. I tend to doubt it, personally.

If you want to link some of the specifics you're referring to, I can promise to read it over by the end of the week. (I'm wall to wall course work with a term paper due tomorrow, just to add to the fun.. can't get to anything major, any sooner). I'd be interested in what you suggest as two unexploded devices. Were these photographed in an armed status and where they were located? I've not seen them, if so...but see above for how much I'm open to accepting I may miss along the way.  It happens.

Why would One do that if One did not want to face the facts?  And if One does not want to face the facts, what other explanation for that unwillingness is there?

There is a point we call self confident and self assured by the research we each have done on a thing, and the conclusions we've formed. There is a stage beyond self confidence...and it's a real ugly thing when it pops up. Gotta watch that...it's easy to fall into. None of us has the absolute, 100% truth to an event we weren't either physically present for (and that is no assurance.. ask me about Occupy in that context sometime) or a direct party to. Were you either of those two things to have this truth as 100% certain in calling fact? I don't, and I'll freely state as much.

I searched for some footage I watched at the time, where a reporter got inside the building and was being shown, by a bomb squad dude, one of the bombs that did not go off...  Like the vid of the 9/11 forensics team complaining that, instead of going to the crime scene and doing Their job as is standard, They were taken to a large basement room somewhere, where a banquet-style table had been set up and a rather small (a wheelbarrow's full roughly) amount of debris was placed on top of the table, and told to do Their job, that OKC bombing vid seems to have been scrubbed.

If you find something comparable to that or anything else to suggest a specific direction to take suspicion, I'm all ears. (no pun intended). I just refuse to run off in the direction of conspiracies based on "It must be..because they all are...or..there can be no other explanation...' or anything of the sort. If evidence leads to more than the obvious facts account for? I'm game to run something to ground and a few feet below it ...but lacking that credible starting point of "huh??"...I'm as likely to go with the obvious as the "must be more to this". It's all case by case.

In this case, the most likely scenario by all the evidence I have considered since 1995 is that the authorities set this up to end VERY differently...and they screwed the pooch so hard, they almost watched their own building knocked flat, as if to emphasize their level of fail.

Opinions cary though, of course.