Do we know what happened in Oklahoma City?

Douglas Caddy · April 19, 2010

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...?printable=true

After reading Gore Vidal's detailed article in the link above, it is interesting to contrast it to former President Clinton's essay in today's New York Times, reprinted below:

What We Learned in Oklahoma City

By BILL CLINTON

April 19, 2010

The New York Times

FIFTEEN years ago today, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City claimed the lives of 168 men, women and children. It was, until 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in United States history. But what emerged in its aftermath — the compassion, caring and love that countless Americans from all walks of life extended to the victims and their families — was a powerful testament to the best of America. And its lessons are as important now as they were then.

Most of the people killed that day were employees of the federal government. They were men and women who had devoted their careers to helping the elderly and disabled, supporting our veterans and enforcing our laws. They were good neighbors and good friends. One of them, a Secret Service agent named Al Whicher, a husband and father of three, had been on my presidential security detail. Nineteen children also lost their lives.

Those who survived endured terrible pain and loss. Thankfully, many of them took the advice of a woman who knew how they felt. A mother of three children whose husband had been killed on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 told them, “The loss you feel must not paralyze your own lives. Instead, you must try to pay tribute to your loved ones by continuing to do all the things they left undone, thus ensuring they did not die in vain.”

We are all grateful that so many of the attack’s survivors have done exactly that. We must also never forget the courageous and loving response of the people and leaders of Oklahoma City and the state of Oklahoma, as well as the firefighters and others who came from all across America to help them.

In the wake of the bombing, Oklahoma City prompted Congress to approve most of the proposals I submitted to develop a stronger and more systematic approach to defending our nation and its citizens against terrorism, an effort that continues today, as we saw with President Obama’s impressive international summit meeting last week to secure all sources of nuclear material that can be made into bombs.

Finally, we should never forget what drove the bombers, and how they justified their actions to themselves. They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them. On that April 19, the second anniversary of the assault of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty.

Americans have more freedom and broader rights than citizens of almost any other nation in the world, including the capacity to criticize their government and their elected officials. But we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don’t get our way. Our founders constructed a system of government so that reason could prevail over fear. Oklahoma City proved once again that without the law there is no freedom.

Criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy. No one is right all the time. But we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws.

We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time. We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged.

Civic virtue can include harsh criticism, protest, even civil disobedience. But not violence or its advocacy. That is the bright line that protects our freedom. It has held for a long time, since President George Washington called out 13,000 troops in response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Fifteen years ago, the line was crossed in Oklahoma City. In the current climate, with so many threats against the president, members of Congress and other public servants, we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, and those who survived and responded so bravely, not to cross it again.

Bill Clinton, the founder of the William J. Clinton Foundation, was the 42nd president of the United States.

Douglas Caddy · April 20, 2010

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...?printable=true
After reading Gore Vidal's detailed article in the link above, it is interesting to contrast it to former President Clinton's essay in today's New York Times, reprinted below:

What We Learned in Oklahoma City

By BILL CLINTON

April 19, 2010

The New York Times

FIFTEEN years ago today, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City claimed the lives of 168 men, women and children. It was, until 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in United States history. But what emerged in its aftermath — the compassion, caring and love that countless Americans from all walks of life extended to the victims and their families — was a powerful testament to the best of America. And its lessons are as important now as they were then.

Most of the people killed that day were employees of the federal government. They were men and women who had devoted their careers to helping the elderly and disabled, supporting our veterans and enforcing our laws. They were good neighbors and good friends. One of them, a Secret Service agent named Al Whicher, a husband and father of three, had been on my presidential security detail. Nineteen children also lost their lives.

Those who survived endured terrible pain and loss. Thankfully, many of them took the advice of a woman who knew how they felt. A mother of three children whose husband had been killed on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 told them, “The loss you feel must not paralyze your own lives. Instead, you must try to pay tribute to your loved ones by continuing to do all the things they left undone, thus ensuring they did not die in vain.”

We are all grateful that so many of the attack’s survivors have done exactly that. We must also never forget the courageous and loving response of the people and leaders of Oklahoma City and the state of Oklahoma, as well as the firefighters and others who came from all across America to help them.

In the wake of the bombing, Oklahoma City prompted Congress to approve most of the proposals I submitted to develop a stronger and more systematic approach to defending our nation and its citizens against terrorism, an effort that continues today, as we saw with President Obama’s impressive international summit meeting last week to secure all sources of nuclear material that can be made into bombs.

Finally, we should never forget what drove the bombers, and how they justified their actions to themselves. They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them. On that April 19, the second anniversary of the assault of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty.

Americans have more freedom and broader rights than citizens of almost any other nation in the world, including the capacity to criticize their government and their elected officials. But we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don’t get our way. Our founders constructed a system of government so that reason could prevail over fear. Oklahoma City proved once again that without the law there is no freedom.

Criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy. No one is right all the time. But we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws.

We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time. We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged.

Civic virtue can include harsh criticism, protest, even civil disobedience. But not violence or its advocacy. That is the bright line that protects our freedom. It has held for a long time, since President George Washington called out 13,000 troops in response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Fifteen years ago, the line was crossed in Oklahoma City. In the current climate, with so many threats against the president, members of Congress and other public servants, we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, and those who survived and responded so bravely, not to cross it again.

Bill Clinton, the founder of the William J. Clinton Foundation, was the 42nd president of the United States.

Bill Clinton on Violence and Government

A Lethal Hypocrisy

By JAMES BOVARD

April 20, 2010

www.counterpunch.org

http://www.counterpunch.org/

Yesterday, on the fifteenth anniversary of the attack on the federal office building in Oklahoma City, former President Bill Clinton had an op-ed today in the New York Times headlined: “Violence is Unacceptable in a Democracy.” The article settles any doubts about whether Clinton was one of the most talented demagogues of modern times.

Casting a net of collective guilt over much of the 48 contiguous states, Clinton announced that the 1995 bombing was the fault of people who believed “that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them.” People who distrusted government helped echo ideas which somehow persuaded “deeply alienated and disconnected Americans” to carry out the attack.

In other words, people who harshly criticize the government are guilty of - or at least complicit in - mass murder.

It would be difficult to contrive a storyline to better exonerate all government actions. We still know far too little about the actual facts of the Oklahoma City bombing. We do know that the perpetrators were guilty of a heinous crime and deserved the harshest punishment. But that is a topic for a different day.

Clinton declared that “we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don’t get our way. “

Unless you’re the government.

The four million Americans arrested for marijuana violations during Clinton’s reign were victims of government violence and government threats of violence. The “fact” that Clinton never inhaled did not prevent the drug war from ravaging far more lives during his time in office. The number of people arrested for drug offenses rose by 73% between 1992 and 1997. The Clinton administration bankrolled the militarization of local police, sowing the seeds for a scourge of no-knock raids at wrong addresses and a massive increase in efforts to intimidate average citizens in big cities around the country.

During Clinton’s reign, the IRS seized over 12 million bank accounts, put liens on over 9 million people’s homes and land, directly confiscated more than 100,000 people’s houses, cars, or real property, and imposed over 100 million penalties on people for allegedly not paying sufficient taxes, paying taxes late, etc. The IRS knew that millions of citizens were assessed taxes and penalties that they did not owe. A 1997 audit of the IRS's Arkansas-Oklahoma district found that a third of the property seizures carried out violated federal law or IRS regulations. Former IRS district chief David Patnoe observed in 1998: “More tax is collected by fear and intimidation than by the law.” The Clinton administration fought tooth and nail against a law Congress passed in 1998 to curtail IRS depredations against innocent Americans.

Clinton’s op-ed mentions, almost as an aside, that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on the second anniversary of the final assault at Waco. In 1995, Clinton denounced the Branch Davidians as “murderers” for their response to the 1993 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms attack on their home. Clinton used that label even though a Texas jury found no such guilt - and even though the BATF apparently shot first and did not have a proper warrant for its no-knock, military-style raid.

Clinton was commander-in-chief when the FBI 54-ton tanks smashed into the Davidians’ home, collapsing 25% of the ramshackle building on top of residents before a fire commenced that left 80 people dead. His administration did almost everything it could to cover up the details of federal action at Waco, spurring the widespread distrust which Clinton later denounced.

The federal raid in April 2000 to seize six year old Elian Gonzalez was Clinton-style non-violence at its best. The late-night surprise attack went as planned - nabbing the boy and leaving shattered doors, a broken bed, roughed-up Cuban-Americans and two NBC cameramen on the ground, writhing in pain from stomach-kicks or rifle-butts to the head. But a photographer caught the image of a souped-up Border Patrol agent pointing his submachine gun toward the terrified boy.

Clinton administration officials rushed to explain why the raid was practically a demonstration of Gandhi’s teachings in action. A few hours after the raid, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder asserted that the boy "was not taken at the point of a gun." When challenged about the machine-gun photograph, Holder explained: "They were armed agents who went in there who acted very sensitively." Attorney General Janet Reno stressed that the photo showed that agent's "finger was not on the trigger." Two days later, Reno declared, "One of the things that is so very important is that the force was not used. It was a show of force that prevented people from getting hurt." By Reno's standard, any bank robbery in which no one gets shot is merely a nonviolent exchange of bags of money. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, responding to a question about the use of excessive force, stressed that the agents "drove up [to the Gonzalez house] in white mini-vans" - as if the vehicle’s color proved they were on a mission of mercy.

Clinton’s Iraq policy relied on systemic violence. The U.S. was the lead country in enforcing and perpetuating the blockade on Iraq that resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying. U.S. planes carried out hundreds of bombing runs on Iraq, and volleys of American cruise missiles slammed his country during his reign.

Bill Clinton has often acted like his 78-day bombing assault on Serbia in 1999 was his finest hour. The State Department was referring to the Kosovo Liberation Army as a terrorist group until 1997. After Clinton decided to attack Serbia, the KLA officially became freedom fighters. The fact that both Serbs and ethnic Albanians were up to their elbows in atrocities was simply brushed aside or denied. After surviving a Senate impeachment trial, Clinton was hellbent on starring in an old-time morality play.

Clinton’s bombing campaign killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Serb civilians. From intentionally bombing a television station, Belgrade neighborhoods, power stations, bridges (regardless of the number of people on them at the time), to “accidentally” bombing a bus (killing 47 people), a passenger train, marketplaces, hospitals, apartment buildings, and the Chinese embassy, the rules of engagement for U.S. bombers guaranteed that many innocent people would be killed.

In his anniversary op-ed, Clinton declared that “without the law there is no freedom.” But the law did not stop, or even slow, Clinton from raining death on Belgrade. Clinton brazenly violated the War Powers Act, the 1973 law which required the president to get authorization from Congress for committing U.S. troops to any combat situation that lasted more than 60 days. The House of Representatives refused to endorse Clinton’s warring. But, on Serbia and many other issues, Clinton acted as if his moral mission exempted him from all restraints, legal and otherwise.

Clinton warned that “there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws.”

And who is to judge when criticizing turns into demonizing? The politicians themselves? Or perhaps the Department of Homeland Security, with its reports on the perils of “extremists” who believe in the Constitution and civil liberties? And then there is always the FBI, which views practically anyone who thinks Washington is full of crap as a dangerous extremist.

And what of the “public servants” who violate citizens’ rights, unjustifiably shoot or Taser them, fabricate evidence against them, or otherwise make their lives hell? What of the congressmen who vote in favor of laws that authorize torture or suspend habeas corpus? What of Justice Department lawyers who craft briefs proving why the president is a Czar?

Fifteen years after the Oklahoma City bombing, we must also remember the danger from politicians who place government above the law and above the people.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books.

Don Jeffries · April 21, 2010

What we know about Oklahoma City is that the mainstream media, the mouthpiece for our corrupt leaders, has defined and "explained" it in the exact same way they define and "explain" all significant political events. Gross simplification, with Hollywood-like cardboard cutout "bad guys," or in this case, an Oswald-like "lone nut."

This crime, like the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations, Waco and 911, was never honestly investigated. McVeigh was convicted on nothing more than the tearful testimony of those who lost loved ones in the bombing and the prosecution's recitation in court of his political beliefs. The prosecution never even proved that McVeigh was at the scene of the crime- they purposefully avoided all the witnesses who saw him there, because each of them saw him in the company of at least one "John Doe #2." There are so many holes in the official story. I would urge all interested readers to check out The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror by David Hoffman. It's the "Rush To Judgment" of this case.

Len Colby · April 21, 2010

What we know about Oklahoma City is that the mainstream media, the mouthpiece for our corrupt leaders, has defined and "explained" it in the exact same way they define and "explain" all significant political events. Gross simplification, with Hollywood-like cardboard cutout "bad guys," or in this case, an Oswald-like "lone nut."
This crime, like the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations, Waco and 911, was never honestly investigated. McVeigh was convicted on nothing more than the tearful testimony of those who lost loved ones in the bombing and the prosecution's recitation in court of his political beliefs. The prosecution never even proved that McVeigh was at the scene of the crime- they purposefully avoided all the witnesses who saw him there, because each of them saw him in the company of at least one "John Doe #2." There are so many holes in the official story. I would urge all interested readers to check out The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror by David Hoffman. It's the "Rush To Judgment" of this case.

What are going on about Don? McVeigh was identified as the renter of the Ryder truck used in the bombing. Additionally he, Nichols and Fortier all confessed to their participation. The former wanted to admit his role at trial and use a "necessity defense" but that idea was rejected by his lawyer. he publicly admitted he was responsible several times between his conviction and execution. Nichols denied he was guilty for years but during the penalty phase of his 2nd trial 'he asked for forgiveness asked "everyone to acknowledge God," and offered to correspond with survivors from jail to "assist in their healing process". The latter admitted his guilt soon after he was arrested and made a plea agreement. The only question unresolved is was whether McVeigh was acting on some else's behalf.

McVeigh: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...ighaccount.html

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/09/pitn.00.html

Nichols: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EfANA...ivors&hl=en

Fortier: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/09/us/12-ye...ma-bombing.html

Christopher Hall · April 21, 2010

Bill Clinton was undoubtedly complicit in the Federal government's raid on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco and the resulting mass immolation of innocent victims.

Janet Reno "accepted responsibility" for the incident, but it entailed the novel concept of responsiibility with no consequences (i.e. she continued on as AG for 7 more years).

The investigation of the Waco raid was obstructed by the FBI and its destruction of evidence (at about the same time its lab became unreliable as a result of shoddy manabement).

If my memory is correct, the FBI "lost" the front door of the Waco compound (which would have determined whether the fire from the first day was incoming our outgoing).

During the investigation, then Congressman Chuck Schumer shilled and ran interference for the FBI and the ATF.

I similarly believe that the investigation of the Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing was inadequate and that key leads regarding Terry Nichols were not adequately investigated.

I have a higher degree of respect for the FBI than many people, but the Waco incident was clearly a low point in its history.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Christopher Hall

Don Jeffries · April 22, 2010

Len,

McVeigh was different from Oswald in that he certainly was involved in some way in the OKC bombing. However, I don't accept for one minute that he was a lone nut, or the main nut in a trio invovling Nichols and Fortier (who cooperated with the authorities and was rarely mentioned in the mainstream press).

McVeigh's trial was a travesty of justice, even worse than Bruno Richard Hauptmann's (back in the 1930s- Lindbergh kidnapping). The prosecution didn't even introduce evidence which placed him at the scene of the crime, because they didn't want to have those witnesses be cross-examined, since every one who saw McVeigh there also saw at least one "John Doe #2." McVeigh's attorney, Stephen Jones, prepared a 150 page defense brief, which outlined many of the most powerful indications of a wider conspiracy, but the judge wouldn't permit it to be allowed into the record. As Jones complained bitterly, "You have just refused to allow a defense."

McVeigh's "confession" and sudden talkativeness came very late in the game, shortly before his unusually swift execution. I have grave doubts about the validity of many of those comments, obtained and recorded (of course, in such a case, that could be anyone's voice) by a couple of writers for a subsequent book. McVeigh refused to testify in his own defense, and before those belated and uncharacteristic comments to the two authors, his few comments were cryptic in nature.

As I noted, David Hoffman's fine book The Oklahoma City Bombing And The Politics Of Terror does a much better job of exposing the flaws in the official story than I ever could. It's the essential book on the subject.

Len Colby · April 22, 2010

Hoffman’s book is available online on a self described “white nationalist” website. I’m read through parts and skimming others. I’ve already detected a few problems. I hope to be able to respond more completely tomorrow.

http://www.solargeneral.com/library/ocbpt.pdf

Take a look at Tink's commentary about the case:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...lite=%2BMcVeigh

Edited April 22, 2010 by Len Colby

Terry Mauro · April 23, 2010

Bill Clinton was undoubtedly complicit in the Federal government's raid on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco and the resulting mass immolation of innocent victims.
Janet Renoe "accepted responsibility" for the incident, but it entailed the novel concept of responsiibility with no consequences (i.e. she continue on as AG for 7 more years).

The investigation of the Waco raid was obstructed by the FBI and its destruction of evidence (at about the same time its lab became unreliable as a result of shoddy manabement).

If my memory is correct, the FBI "lost" the front door of the Waco compound (which would have determined whether the fire from the first day was incoming our outgoing).

During the investigation, then Congressman Chuck Schumer shilled and ran interference for the FBI and the ATF.

I similarly believe that the investigation of the Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing was inadequate and that key leads regarding Terry Nichols were not adequately investigated.

I have a higher degree of respect for the FBI than many people, but the Waco incident was clearly a low point in its history.

You might want to review the role played by the Cult Awareness Network (C.A.N) in the massacre at Waco.

http://www.alamoministries.com/content/eng...e/massacre.html

The siege in Waco began on February 28, when agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) raided the Branch Davidian compound to execute a search warrant seeking evidence of alleged violations of federal weapons laws. As documented in the March 26 issue of Executive Intelligence Review magazine, the ATF actions were triggered by a concerted campaign conducted by the Cult Awareness Network (C.A.N.) in both the U.S. and Australia.

C.A.N. is an organization of kidnappers and "deprogrammers" (that is, brainwashers) which gains influence by (and makes its money from) convincing law enforcement officials and the general public that the United States is awash in dangerous mind-controlling cults. Together with the American Family Foundation and the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.), C.A.N. has corrupted official government law enforcement agencies as the Waco case and an investigation by the San Francisco police of an A.D.L. national spy ring demonstrate.

[in fact, the A.D.L. has been involved directly, in the events in Waco according to Herb Brin, publisher of the Heritage newspapers in California and a fanatic promoter of the A.D.L. illegal covert operations. In a piece defending the A.D.L.'s national spy operations, Brin writes, "U.S. and Texas authorities have precise documentation (from A.D.L., of course) on the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, and how it operated in the past."]

Investigations of C.A.N. reveal the C.A.N. "experts" use precisely the methods of deprogramming of which they accuse the "cults" they attack, such as isolation, sensory deprivation, threats, and the like.

Further, C.A.N. uses the "confessions" extracted from former members of targeted organizations, to demand that action be taken against those organizations.

The Cult Awareness Network (C.A.N.) and Waco

It was this modus operandi which was used by C.A.N. to deploy the ATF against David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in Waco on February 28.

C.A.N. and its Australian affiliate planted with the ATF officials a series of stories from deprogrammed former members warning that Koresh "was heading in one of the following directions: a final Jonestown massacre; an armed confrontation with authorities; or some bizarre behavior, such as an attempted assassination of a public figure."

With this profile, ATF bypassed local Waco authorities, who knew and had dealings with Koresh, instead launched what one of these officials had described as a "Gestapo-style assault" on the compound. Under criticism from local officials and military consultants for their tactics, which resulted in the killing of four ATF officers and an unknown number of Branch Davidians, ATF officials justified their actions by referring back to the profile provided by C.A.N., as if that constituted any kind of evidence at all.

Terry Mauro · April 23, 2010

Q: Mr. LaRouche, I'd like to ask your assessment of the Oklahoma City

terrorism incident. There is a second person who's been arrested, and,

given your counterterrorism specialties, I'd like your overall

assessment of that situation.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Okay. First of all, the two guys who have been picked

up so far, do represent a known capability. Now, it is my information,

from several relevant sources, authoritative sources, that these guys

and guys of a similar type, were not capable of constructing or

deploying (that is, calculated deployment of) an explosive charge of the

type that was used to wreck the building, so that this social group,

typified by the accused McVeigh or the suspect this or the suspect that

Nichols; these people and their similar types, could not have done the

job. Someone like that, of course, could have driven a vehicle which had

been prepared and delivered it according to instructions to a fixed

location, things of that type. But it's obvious: These guys and similar

guys or people they associated with, from their military background,

Special Forces background, {could not have done the job.} This was done

by people who were of a qualitatively much higher level of skill.

Q: Mr. LaRouche, let me ask you here one question about that. Since the

explosives used are supposed to be easily obtained from local stores,

ammonium nitrate--

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Nitrite.

Q: Nitrite and fuel, how is it that these individuals were not--

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Because it's a question of {shaping the charge.} An

explosive is just an explosive.

Q: I see.

LYNDON LAROUCHE. {How you shape the charge} to produce a predetermined

shaped effect, and {knowing} how to do it, and {knowing} where to

pinpoint or focus the effect of the charge on the structure of the

building, which means you have to know someting about these kinds of

things as well, is all involved. That charge was designed with great

sophistication and shaped and placed with great sophistication.

Forget the ammonium nitrite and the oil and so forth. That's not

important. That's just an explosion, and that's one which is difficult

to trace. That's its significance. But this was a shaped charge, which

these guys could not have done. And no one like them could have done it.

Now, what's the significance? The significance is that the way the thing

occurred, with this McVeigh. McVeigh was identified by some witness

earlier, according to reports, as being in Oklahoma City, and driving

the same vehicle in which he was apprehended later, before the

explosion. When he was apprehended, he was picked up, because, according

to the report, the vehicle did not have license plates on it.

Well, it had license plates when he was driving it in Oklahoma City.

Driving without the license plates, {of which he was probably not

witting,} was the surest way in the world to get picked up under those

circumstances by an ordinary interception by highway police; and that's

how he was picked up, according to the reports.

The result of the focus upon these guys, Nichols and McVeigh and so

forth, has resulted in letting the trail go cold on the guys we really

should have been after. And they still aren't the guys. But that's one

side.

{Who} designed the explosive, who got these two patsies or one patsy or

whatever involved in the thing in order to help create a diversionary

trail away from the real perpetrators?

This is a terrorist act. Now, a terrorist act is a psychological act

which has a political context and a political character, whereas the

bomb as such does not have a political character. Why was it done? What

effect is it trying to produce? That's all terrorism is trying to

produce: a psychological-political effect, like warfare.

Well, the ground was prepared, first of all, by the British,

specifically by Lord William Rees-Mogg and his accomplice, Davidson,

through their little Taxpayers' Union, which is a Mont Pelerin Society

outfit. The political profile of the forces in the United States which

are working closely with Rees-Mogg's neo-conservatives, are the same

people who, like Rush Limbaugh, have been targetting President Clinton,

and, in a sense, setting him up to be a target by all kinds of kooks in

this country.

The people who led the misdirection after the explosion, in trying to

get forces to chase somebody else other than the actual perpetrator,

that is, the actual, real perpetrators, not the patsies, was the same

Rees-Mogg and his friends, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the same people who

are after the President.

So the only political setting of that explosion, is the one created

{before} and {after} the act by the Canadian-based Conrad Black of the

Hollinger Corporation news syndicate, and by the London {Times's} former

chief editor Rees-Mogg, along with Conrad Black's Ambrose Evans-

Pritchard. So we do know who is {politically exploiting} the explosion,

who was {prepared} to exploit the explosion {before} it happened, and

who followed up in the same manner {after} it happened, and whose effect

was to deliver a message which the British are still repeating in their

press today, and which also had the additional advantage of {diverting

the attention} of law enforcement people away from the real problem into

spending most of the time, up until the recent period, checking out all

of these ``militia types,'' so called, and then coming up with an answer

that none of these guys could have been capable of preparing a charge

and placing it with that sopistication.

And where are the guys who did it? Oh, the trail long went cold. It may

not be as bad as that, but that's the picture you get.

So, here we are, a case of this faction of the British Empire, the

British monarchy, prepared and exploited a terrorist act against the

United States, a terrorist act of military intelligence sophistication,

way above the Special Forces level; and they're the ones who benefitted.

And that's the kind of problem to which the President was referring in

his address at the university in Moscow. This is the enemy. The

President was diplomatic and did not mention {London}; but I'm certain

that the President knows the British monarchy is the party that is

responsible for this and other present, recent past, and possibly future

events of a similar gory quality.

Len Colby · June 10, 2010

Hoffman’s book is available online on a self described “white nationalist” website. I’m read through parts and skimming others. I’ve already detected a few problems. I hope to be able to respond more completely tomorrow.

http://www.solargeneral.com/library/ocbpt.pdf

Take a look at Tink's commentary about the case:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...lite=%2BMcVeigh

Sorry for my long absence. I sold my house and bought a fixer-uppper apartment doing the renovations, packing, moving and unpacking left me little fre time the last few months

The Politics of BS

One of the central points of Hoffman’s book is that the truck bomb alone could not have caused all the damage to the Murrah building. Unfortunately his claims and analysis is replete with errors, distortions and logical fallacies.

THE ASCE/FEMA REPORT

The collapse was the subject of a 100-page study sponsored by FEMA but essentially run by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Four of the nine structural engineers including the leader were from the ASCE, 2 from FEMA and 1 each from the Army Corps of Engineers, NIST and the GSA. Most of the engineers had forensic experience [1] . According to the report the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT):

…visited the area around the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City during the period of May 9 through 13, 1995…While in Oklahoma City, the BPAT took photographs; collected structural drawings, shop drawings, photographs, and samples of structural components, including concrete and reinforcing bars; and obtained an audio tape of the explosion. The BPAT also conducted interviews concerning damage to buildings. Physical inspection of the structure was limited to visual observation from a distance of approximately 200 feet.[2]

Though they never got close to the building they spoke to engineers who did, “Dr. W. Gene Corley (ASCE) interviewed the Structural Engineer of Record for the Murrah Building project, Paul Kirkpatrick, P.E., on May 11, 1995...Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that soon after the blast, he was called to the site to assist with stabilizing the debris.” They also spoke to two or three other engineers who seem to have seen the damaged building close up “...the BPAT interviewed Robert Hill...an engineering consultant to GSA … John McRoberts, a GSA employee...[and] David Hammond of Palo Alto, California, an engineering consultant working for FEMA” [3] .

Hoffman put on a pretense of presenting a balanced assessment of expert opinions but only made a brief factually incorrect reference to the report which he seems not to have read. He wrote:

Even the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was forced to conclude that 4,800 pounds of ANFO could have not caused the so-called crater in Oklahoma City. FEMA's report, published on August 30, 1996, inadvertently concluded that the bombers would have had to use approximately three times the amount reportedly used in Oklahoma City.[4]

That was his only mention of the report in his 300 plus page book. His claim is patently false. The relevant portion of the report reads:

The calculation of blast loading begins with the estimation of the yield or quantity of explosives detonated. For bursts near the ground surface, the yield or quantity is usually inferred from the dimensions of the crater formed (see Figure 3-1). In this report, the engineering survey of the crater forms the basis of this inference.

The crater was approximately 28 feet in diameter and 6.8 feet in depth, as shown in Figure 3-2. The center is about 7 feet east and 14 feet north of Column G20, as shown in Figure 3-3. According to the design drawings and observations on site, the thickness of the pavement was 18 inches and the underlying soil was dry sandy clay. From information about the truck reported to have contained the explosive device, the center of the explosive is estimated to have been 4.5 feet above the ground surface, as shown in Figure 3-2.

As shown in Table 3-1, the detonation of a spherical charge of trinitrotoluene (TNT, the standard by which the energy of various explosives is measured) weighing approximately 4,000 pounds at 4.5 feet above 18-inch-thick pavement on soil results in a crater whose dimensions are consistent with those measured at the Murrah Building site. In Table 3-1, the crater dimensions for pavement on soil are an average of those for massive concrete and for the dry sandy clay alone, weighted in proportion to the depths of the two materials in the crater. This weighting is substantiated by the results of ongoing research concerning craters in pavements based on soil.

Figure 3-4 presents an indication of the blast loading in the general neighborhood of the Murrah Building. It specifically shows the incident free-field overpressure contours corresponding to the surface detonation of 4,000 pounds of TNT at the location of the bomb crater. These contours correlate approximately with the level of damage shown for buildings in the neighborhood. However, this damage is also a function of load modification by nearby buildings and the resistance of the buildings themselves… For the surface detonation of 4,000 pounds of TNT, the free-field motion at the center of the building is shown in Figure 3-7. [5]

To make a long story short they concluded, based the dimensions of the crater, that the bomb’s output was equivalent to approximately 4,000 pounds of TNT and that this was consistent with the damage to the Murrah building and other buildings in the area. Sources differ only slightly on exactly how much ANFO equals a set amount of TNT. According to the Institute of Makers of Explosives’ “TNT Equivalence Calculator” 4954.5 pounds of ANFO is equal to 4000 pounds of TNT only 3% more than the FBI’s 4800 estimate [6]. Thus his claim that FEMA “inadvertently concluded that the bombers would have had to use approximately three times the amount reportedly used in Oklahoma City” was a complete fabrication.

Hoffman seems not even to have read the report, his cited source is not the document itself but rather it as “quoted in Relevance magazine, April, 1997” [7] his failure to use a direct quote or give a page number lead me to believe he intentionally mislead his readers rather than made a gross blunder. Indicating the report was exclusively produced by FEMA without mentioning the ASCE’s role was also highly misleading.

Hoffman wrote “General Partin, along with Senator Inhoffe, Representative Key and others, asked Congress that the building not be demolished until an independent forensic team could be brought in to investigate the damage” [8]. But he never indicated that of a group of engineers (though apparently not one he trusts) carried out an extesive study which included “investigating the damage” before the building was demolished.

OTHER CAR BOMB ATTACKS

Hoffman’s comparison of the damage to the Murrah Building with other truck and car bomb attacks is likewise beset by errors and distortions. He wrote:

In August of 1970, 1,700 pounds of ANFO parked in a van exploded outside the Army Math Research Lab at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Although parked closer than the Ryder truck was to the Murrah Building, the bomb merely blew a hole in the outer wall and took out the windows. One person was killed. (See photo)

In 1989, Colombian narco-terrorists detonated a truck-bomb outside the National Security Department in Bogota, Columbia. The vehicle was parked approximately ten feet from the modern high-rise building. The bomb decimated the face of the building, but left the support columns intact. Fifteen people were killed.

In the summer of 1996, an IRA truck-bomb detonated in the heart of Manchester’s financial district. The device, constructed of ANFO and 3,500 pounds of Semtex, a high-velocity, military-grade plastic explosive, caused considerable damage to the surrounding buildings, but left them relatively intact. Although the device managed to break a lot of windows and injure 206 people, no one was killed.

On June 25, 1996, a tanker-trailer packed with RDX plastic explosives blew up outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex at King Abdul Aziz Air Base in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds more. While the blast produced a crater 35 feet deep and 85 feet across (the crater in Oklahoma was approximately 6 feet deep and 16 feet across, although the government claimed it was 30 feet), it didn’t do the same amount of damage done to the Murrah Building — a building constructed to much more rigorous codes and specifications. Yet authorities claim that the bomb was at least the size as that which blew up the Federal Building.[see photo]

In an analogy offered by Partin, “It would be as irrational or as impossible as a situation in which a 150 pound man sits in a flimsy chair causing the chair to collapse, while a man weighing 1,500 pounds sits in an identical flimsy chair and it does not collapse — impossible.” [9]

One of the chief deficiencies is that no two ANFO bombs are exactly alike and the exact recipe can affect how potent they are, the OKC bomb is believed to have contained 165 gallons of nitromethane normally used as a drag racking fuel [10]. Even though Hoffman informed his readers on the same page as the above extract that McVeigh unsuccessfully tried to obtain “a racing fuel component known as Hydrazine” and that “according to a source quoted in the Rocky Mountain News” such a bomb “"would create one of the largest non-nuclear blasts possible."” he only told his readers 123 pages later that another drag racing fuel was believed to have been added to the bomb. Though he showed his skepticism he did not offer any evidence contradicting several witnesses he cited (not to mention Terry Nichols after publication) that McVeigh bought or tried to buy nitromethane [11]

Note that in the above extract Hoffman mentioned the distances the 1970 and 1989 devices were from their targets but he failed to do so for the 1996 ones and that he failed to give size of the Colombian bomb. In all the cases he cited the bomb was less powerful than McVeigh’s or detonated further away from its target. Often he got his facts wrong. Additionally he used the death tolls from the attacks as a sort of barometer for the potency of the explosives but failed to inform his readers that the other bombs went off outside business hours or after the area had been or was being evacuated.

=== Madison 1970 ===

Based on Hoffman’s claim the Wisconsin bomb had about 35% the mass of the Oklahoma one and presumably did not contain nitromethane, hydrazine or any other racing/rocket fuels. Obviously a bomb doing little damage to one building in no way contradicts the possibility that a much more powerful explosive device did more to a differently constructed one. Only one person was killed because the bomb went off at 3:42AM [12]

=== Bogota 1989 ===

I doubt it was a coincidence Hoffman failed to mention the mass of the Columbian bomb according to a few sources including AP, Reuters, UPI, the St. Petersburg Times and other sources it was half a ton (1000 lbs) of dynamite [13], A Columbian legal affairs website [14] and El Tiempo a Bogota newspaper said it was “500 kilos de dinamita” OR 1100 lbs [15]. According to the National Counterterrorism Center dynamite can have 70 – 144% the potency of the same weight of TNT [16], Wikipedia citing no sources says it 63% more potent [17]. Thus best case scenario the bomb was 40 % as powerful as the one McVeigh put together. AP stated it “destroyed or heavily damaged a score of buildings” ElTiempo said it ‘left the building in ruins’ [15 A].

Hoffman said “the vehicle was parked approximately ten feet from the modern high-rise building” but the LA Times reported that it “exploded…across a busy street” this fit with El Tiempo reporting that ‘the bomb…detonated before reaching its objective’ and that the bus it was in ‘was partially diverted from its objective because it collided with a small delivery truck’ [15 B], the “busy street” was Carerra 27 [14] the sidewalks of which appear to be about 20 feet wide. So no surprise a much smaller bomb probably further away did less damage.

Hoffman wrote “Fifteen people were killed” but early reports said the total was 35 [AP] later ones said 63 [uPI, El Tiempo]. The bomb went off at 7:30 AM obviously casualties would have been higher if it had detonated during business hours (after 8AM).

=== Manchester 1996 ===

The Manchester bomb was parked curbside so was probably a similar distance from the nearest building but based on the size of the crater whatever its composition it was much less powerful than the one that exploded in Oklahoma City so as with the 1970 and 1989 incidents lower damages levels are not unusual. Hoffman told his readers no was killed by the English bomb but he failed to tell them that the area hand been evacuated.[18]

=== Khobar Towers ===

Regarding the Khobar Towers attack he had good reason for “forgetting” to tell his readers how far the truck was from the building. It was approximately 80 feet away [19] four times the estimated 20 feet in OKC. He also failed to tell his readers that the Saudi Arabian building had been surrounded by one or two rows of ““Jersey” barriers of the kind used in construction and on U.S. highways been present to absorb or deflect part of the blast”[20] .

As noted above Hoffman wrote that “authorities claim that the bomb was at least the size as that which blew up the Federal Building” in reality the official DoD report about the incident concluded that “The Task Force estimated that the bomb was between 3,000 and 8,000 pounds, most likely about 5,000 pounds.” Remember that the FBI and FEMA/ASCE concluded the OKC bomb was around 4000 pounds. So “the authorities” claimed it was “most likely” larger but may have been smaller but any case was further away.

Hoffman also claimed that the Khobar bomb “didn’t do the same amount of damage done to the Murrah Building” but as can clearly be seen the damage to both buildings was comparable.

Hoffman also claimed that the Murrah building was “a building constructed to much more rigorous codes and Specifications” than the Khobar Towers [21] but provided no citation or justification for his claim other than a seeming false claim from a supposed architect of the former. Presumably he simply assumed that Saudi buildings wouldn’t be built to American standards, however leading international engineering firms are frequently hired to build projects in the Arabian Peninsula, the firm of Leslie Robertson has at least 8 projects in Saudi Arabia, Quatar and Dubai [22] and the site of the tower is only 300 miles or so from current tallest building/free standing structure in the world. In any case:

The design of the Khobar Towers buildings incorporated measures to reduce the likelihood of progressive collapse by using British building code which includes such provisions. The provisions in the British code were developed in response to an accidental gas explosion in response to an accidental gas explosion in the Ronan Point apartment building in which the corner bay collapsed over the entire 22 story height following failure of one load bearing wall panel in the 18th story. [23]

=== “HARDENED TARGET” ===

Hoffman twice referred to the Murrah building as a “hardened target” [24] and makes two other references to “hardened targets” implying the Oklahoma building was one [25] but his evidence that the building is weak. He wrote

Jim Loftis, one of the building's architects, told me they were asked to make the building bomb-resistant, due to left-wing radicals who were blowing up federal facilities in the early 1970s. Loftis also said the building was designed to meet earthquake standards. "We designed it to meet the building codes and earthquakes are part of that code," said Loftis.

Loftis also said that the north side of the lower level (the area impacted by the truck-bomb) was steel-rebar reinforced concrete without windows…

Note that not even Hoffman claimed that Loftis was the lead architect according to the ASCE/FEMA report:

The architect for the project was a joint venture of two firms, Shaw Associates and Locke Wright Foster, both based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The individual architects of record were Wendel V. Locke (Registered Architect in Oklahoma, License No. 614) and William M. Shaw (Registered Architect in Oklahoma, License No. 620). [26]

Wikipedia citing CNN concurred citing Locke as the architect who “designed” the building [27] . So it is unclear what exactly Loftis’ role was. As the pre-attack photo below makes clear his claim that “that the north side of the lower level was...without windows.” was false.

So apparently were Loftis’ claims that “they were asked to make the building bomb-resistant, due to left-wing radicals who were blowing up federal facilities in the early 1970s” and that the building was designed to be earthquake resistant.

Dr. W. Gene Corley (ASCE) interviewed the Structural Engineer of Record for the Murrah Building project, Paul Kirkpatrick, P.E., on May 11, 1995. Mr. Kirkpatrick noted that the original design parameters did not require any consideration of blast resistance, earthquake, or other extreme loading not required by building codes at the time. Rather, the structure was to be designed for normal office building loading in Oklahoma City. [28]

=== AMIA HEADQUATERS 1994 ===

Presumably for obvious reasons Hoffman failed to mention the 1994 truck bomb attack on the Buenos Aires Jewish Association (AMIA) Headquarters in his comparison. That bomb was believed to have contained only the equivalent of 300 * – 400* ** [29] kilos, i.e. 660 – 880 lbs of TNT thus it was only about a sixth the size of the OKC bomb yet the devastation to that building was equal to or greater than the damage to the Murrah building.

The “researcher” was obviously aware of the attack because he mentioned it twice in other parts of his book. On page 158 in a section where he seemed to be pushing the notion people from the Middle East might have been responsible he quoted a brief written by McVeigh’s attorney, “HizbAllah, the Iranian-sponsored and Syrian-backed "Party of God," is believed to be behind a series of bombings in July of 1994 that took 117 lives in Argentina, Panama, and Britain” and in the footnote added “The bombings included a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires and the Israeli embassy, the downing of a commuter plane in Panama, and a Jewish charity organization in London.” In another section where he pushed the notion the bombing was a false flag attack he wrote, “In 1994, a car-bomb blew up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 87 people. Police blamed the attack on unnamed Arab militants. Yet in July of 1996, Argentine authorities arrested 17 police officers in connection with the attack”.

This was yet another example of Hoffman’s distortions and omissions. Early on Argentine authorities blamed Iranian intelligence and Hezbollah [30] the arrested police officers were charged with abetting and covering up for the perpetrators. [31]

CONSLUSION

Hoffman’s book apparently convinced many people that the OKC bombing was the result of a large conspiracy organized by high government officials and that McVeigh and Nichols were only pawns or patsies. Undoubtedly he was telling them what they wanted here or at least what they already believed and they failed to check his claims, if they had they would have discovered how flawed his book was.

1] “The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving Building Performance Through Multi-Hazard. Mitigation,” FEMA and ASCE August 1996

http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~ce676/MURRAH/FEMA%202771.pdf

Google cache version (searchable) http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcobweb.ecn.purdue.edu%2F~ce676%2FMURRAH%2FFEMA%25202771.pdf&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Scribd version clumsy search function and can take hours to load but color graphics

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25877043/Oklahoma-City-Bombing-1996-FEMA-ASCE-Report-Full-Text

Appendix A, pg 88

2] FEMA, Executive Summary, pg 9

]

3\ FEMA, 2.5, pgs 40 – 3

4] The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror, by David Hoffman 1998

http://www.solargeneral.com/library/ocbpt.pdf Pg. 82 (all page numbers for the book crorrespond to the linked pdf82 (all page numbers for the book crorrespond to the linked PDF version not the print edition.

5] FEMA 3.2.1 pages 46 - 50

6] http://www.ime.org/dynamic.php?page_id=9 that comes out to 80.8%, Global Security.org calculated ANFO is 82% as potent as TNT http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/anfo.htm

7] Hoffman pg 14

8]Hoffman pg 85

9] Hoffman pgs 77 – 8

10] http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-19992815.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/11/28/553/34751 http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_218475.html

11] Hoffman pgs 78, 201

12] http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/museum/artifacts/archives/001636.asp

13] AP http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/07/world/bomb-at-police-building-in-bogota-kills-35-and-wounds-hundreds.html

Reuters http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/orlandosentinel/access/90023828.html?dids=90023828:90023828&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+08%2C+1989&author=Reuters&pub=Orlando+Sentinel&desc=SPANIARD+TIED+TO+BLAST+IN+BOGOTA+POLICE+CHIEF+SAYS+HELP+WAS+GIVEN+BY+BASQUE&pqatl=google

UPI http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6CEcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CFcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6702,4761408&dq=bomb+bogota+ton&hl=en

SP Times http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/50579282.html?dids=50579282:50579282&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+17%2C+1989&author=ROBERT+PITTMAN&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&desc=Colombia+summit+not+worth+the+risk&pqatl=google

14http://www.dmsjuridica.com/JURISPRUDENCIA/CONSEJO_DE_ESTADO/docs/SECCION_TERCERA/1997/CE-SEC3-EXP1997-N10229.doc pg 7 (page # depends on the configuration of your word processor and thus is approximate)

15] http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/justicia/ARTICULO-WEB-PLANTILLA_NOTA_INTERIOR-6744448.html

The original phrases were A] “dejó en ruinas”, B] “la bomba, que detonó antes de llegar a su objetivo.”, and “que se desvió parcialmente de su objetivo porque se estrelló con un pequeño camión de mercados”

16]

http://www.nctc.gov/site/technical/tnt.html

17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite#Difference_from_TNT

18] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_2527000/2527009.stm

19] http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=41452

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/khobar_af/part2f.htm

20] http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/khobar_af/part2f.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/khobar.htm

21] Hoffman pg 78

22] http://www.lera.com/projects/ae/talltowerdubai.htm

23] http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2004/08000/Fatal_and_Non_Fatal_Injuries_among_U_S__Air_Force.2.aspx A FEMA paper also indicates the buildings “The building did not collapse because had been built to British code Standards” http://www.fema.gov/library/file?type=originalAccessibleFormatFile&file=430_ch1.txt&fileid=372b6460-d0de-11dc-af98-001185636fb7

24] Hoffman pgs 74 and 77