There was a lot of fishy stuff connected with the OKC bombing. Clinton used it to demonize conservatives—Rush Limbaugh and the “right wing militias.” It turned his election campaign around.
Ambrose Evans Pritchard is a good book to read on this. And a lot more stuff came out later—most notably the expert report that proved that the building could not have been brought down by the truck bomb alone.
As with Waco, clinton quickly removed all the physical evidence and disposed of it.
So, I don’t find this new story entirely surprising. It may well be true.
Do you have a book title i can look for? Will the local library have the book?
“but when they need the people to believe them during some crisis or whatnot, we might not.”
“So, I dont find this new story entirely surprising. It may well be true.”
I find it pretty incredible Americans still have doubts. Look at this video and you’ll see something never shown before on the “biggest mystery in history.” HINT; it’s NOT a mystery it’s a SECRET, that means you’ve been lied to for decades.
To UNDERSTAND HISTORY, you have to THINK, letting the newscasters and the “experts” think for you makes it too easy for the BIG LIE to be told.
Waco cleaned itself.
OKC was messy.
NYC was messy, it took Rootie a while to push it onto a barge to Japan.
"So, I dont find this new story entirely surprising. It may well be true."
May well be???? Did it, or didn't it happen? Look for motives.
“most notably the expert report that proved that the building could not have been brought down by the truck bomb alone.”
What I always find curious about these conspiracy theories is how to explain away the facts one has to accept in order to believe in the conspiracy. Hundreds of people would have had to support the conspiracy, a fact which history proves is virtually impossible. The conspirators would have had to conspire with McVeigh and get him to accept the death penalty without talking. The people in the Murtha building might have been a little curious about why people were planting explosives all over the building. The timing of the truck blast and the building blast would have to be timed exactly lest the explosion of one disable the other. The forensic people who analyzed debri from the building would have had to be involved in the conspiracy to cover up chemical traces of whatever explosives were used inside the building. If the goal was to spread terror or point fingers at the right wing, why would it have mattered if the building collapsed or not? Would not the truck bomb and the ensuing damage, whether total or partial, not be enough to accomplish the mission? Why was dropping the front of the building down any more dramatic than simply destroying a third of it, or even a fourth? Why take such a huge risk of being caught planting explosive just to add another 30 or 40% to the damage?
Now, I know these can be explained away by even more absurd conspiracies, but in a time when the CIA can’t even keep a secret about waterboarding, how likely is it that a conspiracy by the government to drop a building would not leak?
Finally, you can find an “expert” to say anything you want. The overwhelming number of experts who have studied the bombing have no doubt it was brought down by the truck.