The OKC bombing coverup

This is one of the more mainstream news pieces I've seen exposing the government's involvement in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building. This was broadcasted on CBN News in 1998.

Part I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO3hmELmIO4 (7:08)

Part II

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBofHeXxyqc&feature=related (6:00)

 

Can a negative event happen anywhere on earth and not be called a conspiracy or coverup??

*facepalm*

 

It can, but not in this case.

 

Sure!

But a bunch of suspicious behaviour, on the part of 3 certain men, bears looking into, don't you think?

And you CAN see the burn marks on the part of building left standing that the dude was talking about that supposedly collapsed the floor and the shearing of the beam.

But, without proof and forensic evidence, it can ONLY be theories...

 

That clip was from Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network. CBN is far from what could be considered mainstream, unless the viewer has strong conservative/fascist leanings.

Robertson's group did a good job of making such clips look and sound official, mainstream, and convincing to the general public. A clip that aired on the 700 Club was usually followed by Robertson himself giving his personal opinion about it and trying to reinforce the propaganda message. Usually one or two other regular 700 Club hosts would be seen quietly nodding in agreement with Robertson's statements.

CBN could have made similar claims about the government secretly stashing WMD in the WTC but apparently didn't. In 1998 when the Murrah clip was aired, the Clinton administration was in office. That administration was despised by Robertson and regularly barraged as part of his 'secular left' vs.'religious right'
paradigm that he used to help promote his agenda. Accusing the Bush administration of secretly planting WMD in the WTC would have been even more grand than the contention about Murrah, but it didn't fit Robertson's political and religious agenda and ideology. Much the same can be said about General Partin, who claims that Murrah was done by controlled demolition charges secretly planted by the government but denies any type of government involvement in the 9/11 attacks. It's a testament as to how a person's ideology and agenda dictate what they are willing to believe and promote.

In another matter related to 9/11, Robertson had Jerry Falwell on his 700 Club show in the days that followed 9/11. Falwell used the 9/11 tragedy to take pot shots at the groups he despised, blaming 9/11 on the gays and secularists. Robertson stated that he concurred with Falwell

.

 

But these were not the findings of Robertson and Falwell, but the actual commission that investigated the OKC bombings, headed by Rep. Charles Key.

CBN is on cable television, so it's probably no less "mainstream" than CNN or FOX. I wouldn't know because I don't watch it. I don't watch television. Whether the network was founded by Pat Robertson, Ted Turner, or Rupert Murdoch, what difference does it make? None of these are people I would trust, so I use what I know to determine what is true and what isn't. I do not give a shit about the source, because it's the information that counts and whether it can be backed up with factual evidence, which it can.

Nice try, though.

Maybe focus on the actual evidence next time instead of your pathetic straw man arguments aimed at discrediting. Maybe address the findings of Gen. Ben Partin, the US military explosives expert who went public with clear evidence of charges being placed on the columns of the building.

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

Perhaps have a look into the government's prior knowledge of the attacks, or how sworn affidavits by rescue workers that were the first to arrive on scene show that the BATF was already on location and dressed in bomb gear that takes at least a half hour to put on.

Look into the sworn affidavits by eyewitnesses who saw bombs being removed from inside the federal building during the rescue efforts.

Look at the live media coverage from that day reporting multiple bombs in the building.

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

Look into the numerous intelligence ties to Elohim City.

Look into how the camera footage of the alleged Ryder truck was never released.

 

U.S. Forces Command Daily Log

Again, confirmation of at least two additional bombs which were found in the Murrah Building.

 

YouTube is not a credible citation or credible display of evidence.

 

Joe Harp affidavit

Joe Harp, based on his military explosives experience, refutes the ANFO claim and identifies the additional bombs he sees removed from the building as being military in nature.

 

Arlene Blanchard Press Release

Arlene was a survivor of the bombing. In this press release, issued at the time of her grand jury appearance, she reveals that she was ordered to keep silent about what she knew of the bombing by the Army under threat of court martial.

 

DoD Atlantic Command Memo

This memo, issued 24 hours after the bombing, reports at least two additional bombs were found in the Murrah Building.

 

FEMA Situation Report

This FEMA memo also reports at least two additional bombs were found in the Murrah Building.

 

Jane Graham Statement

This statement by a survivor tells of three men he saw in the Murrah Building Garage the week prior to the bombing, and the FBI's obvious disinterest in the matter.

 

Groups such as CBN aren't interested in facts. They are the ones using straw man arguments as part of an effort to promote an agenda. The issue to them isn't about supposed secretly stashed WMD in Murrah, the WTC, or Iraq. They simply use this as a backdrop for their propaganda. It makes people emotional and captures their fantasy, which they think will make people more moldable and help sway them to their side.

Robertson has a warped version of the Bible that he wants to use to control people. He relies heavily on the 'conservative religious' vs. 'secular humanist' theme to influence people. Other groups use similar methods. Alex Jones is fond of the 'Global Elite' vs. 'Local Pauper' dialectic. Denialist Gary Null uses a reverse cause-effect approach on people, claiming that mainstream treaments cause AIDS as opposed to HIV. He could make a reasonable profit at his supplement business without such baseless claims, but he elects to behave irresponsibly and use misinformation as a backdrop to boost sales. The Bush administration could have been honest about its real rationales for invading Iraq but instead resorted to a 'WMD hidden in Iraq' approach that relied on fictitious or flimsy evidence and which garnered public support through fear.

Regarding the bomb claims about Murrah, we could go through a similar exercise for the 9/11 incident and document all the cases of people who thought they saw bombs. Some people said they thought there were bombs hidden in cars lining the streets near the WTC being set off by remote control. In another incident, rescue workers stopped and roughed up two Mideastern men in a box truck that had a cartoon of an airplane flying over a city. It appeared to them like an aircraft crashing into skyscrapers and they mistakenly thought there was a bomb in the truck. British police shot and killed a man in a train station who they mistakenly believed was a Mideastern terrorist because he had electrical maintenance wires on him that they assumed were detonation cables. A person at Murrah said she saw a man in the building prior to the bombing with wires and became suspicious. Joe Harp said he assumed bombs when he saw the bomb squad putting containers into the truck (which could have been anything suspicious or potentially hazardous) and assumed he saw detonator switches on the containers and labels suggesting it was a bomb. Someone trying to hide a bomb likely wouldn't leave names of contents associated with bomb making on the container.

People will often believe such things when in a stressful situation. An affidavit isn't proof of what they are claiming, even though it's a sworn legal statement of what they believed to be true. Such claims shouldn't be immediately dismissed or discredited. But if there is no other tangible evidence for them, then they are simply claims.

The propagandists mentioned earlier try to psychologically instill an artificial version of that emotional, stressful state into people with the hopes of increasing the chance of swaying opinion and beliefs to their side.

.

 

This is not about CBN, so stop twisting the argument. I do not give a shit about them. I am equally critical of ALL media, but sometimes there are bits and pieces of truth revealed. Pat Robertson is a 33rd Freemason and just another fake Christian like Bush. I find him to be no better or worse than the liars at the helm of any of the other corporate media networks. They are all bad as far as I am concerned. Robertson is just another one of them, but using the guise of Christianity instead of secular left vs. right politics to push his agenda.

Even if they are using the story as propaganda, which could very well be the case, the information contained within the piece is still accurate and supports what independent researchers have been saying.

And as far as the bombs in the building, what you're conveniently ignoring is the fact that it was reported live on the news that day that the FBI and bomb squad were reporting at least two secondary devices removed from the building after the initial explosions. So even if the affidavits do not prove what they're alleging, the government's own statements do.

 

There was a FEMA memo that mentioned a second and third bomb. However, that memo was written shortly after the bombing and it stated that much of the situational information came from the media, which didn't have all the facts straight. Much the same can be said about media reports just after 9/11 which were riddled with reports of bombs which turned out to be false.

People like Pat Robertson are the ones that are twisting the facts and using a tragedy for their own gain. They use unproven claims, supposition, conjecture, and quote mining to try to mold the public into believing that an administration that they didn't like secretly planted explosives in Murrah and that the truck bomb was just a ruse.

The secretly stashed WMD propaganda ploy has been used in everything from Murrah to Iraq. It has gotten stale over the past 15 years. Opinion shapers need to move on to more creative tactics.

On the pragmatic side, arguments can certainly be made about the more mundane security aspects of Murrah, although that topic often gets lost in the flurry of the sensational WMD theories that circulate the web and capture the fantasy of the general public. Murrah occupied a very small lot for its size. The lane allowed vehicles to park right park right next to the building and critical columns, making it a prime target for a truck bomb. Simply keeping visiting vehicles a minimum distance from the building would have greatly reduced the amount of damage from a truck bomb. Even though it was built in the 70s when people in the U.S. were not as conscious of terrorism, the design and operation of that building was pathetic when considering the level of security needed to adequately protect a federal building in any era.

.

 

But the DOD memo which stated multiple bombs was issued more than 24 hours after the incident.

Except there is nothing unproven in this clip. The people interviewed have issued written statements, such as the woman who saw the three men in the underground parking garage. You're just being critical of the source so you do not have to address the content of the video.

What do you mean, "secretly stashed WMD"??

According to military explosives experts, a truck bomb could not have caused the extent of damage to the building that was seen. Only explosives placed directly on the columns could. Also, the "truck bomb" does not add up, because according to Ben Partin, the explosives expert involved in the OKC investigation, columns that were further away from the alleged truck received more damage then those right in front of the truck. This might be why Clinton and his gang of criminals had to keep lying and changing the story. If you have done the actual research, you would know that it wasn't until at least a day or two later that the truck bomb became the official story. First it was a van with explosives, then it suddely became a Ryder truck once people started asking questions regarding the size of the explosion(s).

 

The Finch memo was dated 0500 local April 20. That's less than 24 hours after the incident. The situational description is essentially the same as what was described in the FEMA memo, which was based on media reports. Much the same as what happened with initial reports of 9/11, the secondary bomb reports turned out to be false.

A woman saying she saw three men in the basement isn't proof the government secretly stashed WMD in the basement. It's not a matter of the source. It's the way opinion shapers (such as CBN) use such testimony to try to plant seeds of suspicion and sway the general public into believing something that didn't happen for their own purposes.

The Ryder truck is well documented from various sources.

Partin is respected for his expertise with military ordnance. However, he missed the boat on this one. He has stated that his mind was already made up when he arrived on the scene of Murrah. He was involved in some ordnance experiments in 1997 that attempted to recreate the Murrah blast and tried to argue that it couldn't have been caused by a truck bomb. However, he is not a structural engineer and not experienced with progressive collapse of a structure such as Murrah. He neglected to consider various factors involved in building damage and collapse that result from a truck bomb. The front third of Murrah was damaged and collapsed as a result of the truck bomb which was on that side. Yet he contends that the government secretly stashed explosives in the front third of the building to add damage to what the truck bomb already did (curiously, although 9/11 truthers have tried to enlist him, he elects to not use this same theory for the 9/11 incident, perhaps because the Pentagon was involved). The structural engineering community doesn't support his conclusions because of the shortcomings of his assessment and the lack of any tangible evidence of pre-planted demolition charges on the columns.

.

 

Man, we get it, from BOTH sides...

People like Robertson, John Hagee, Benny Hinn ~ those folks aren't real Christian people. They're the money-grubbers, trying to "sell" their version of religion.

You know what a "church" is?

Not some huge arena for a pastor to perform in,

although, Dr. Charles Stanley HAD to build a huge church, because so many prople want to listen to, and see, him, in person. (Yeah ~ he's that good)

Well, anyway, if you're married, or have a couple of Christian friends, and you get together to pray, study and worship Him, you're in Church.