A Noble Lie - OK City Bombing.

[Peter Lemkin]

I mean, um, just looking at A Noble Lie, plus taking into account the books and other film I've watched on OKC...this seems like a very elaborate, costly, and wide-ranging operation to take on for informational purposes related to a future 9/11 attack, especially when data was gathered during the WTC truck bombing in February 1993.

I dunno - did I watch Three Days of the Condor too many times, and am brainwashed into looking for purposes? Whatever white supremacist/armed religious cult momentum the Clinton admin DOJ was obsessed with seems to have died out once the Bush regime returned.

So, why OKC? For instance, what did our law enforcement and intelligence agencies get out of it?

I mean, is this a characterological theme thing? Were the Clintons obsessed with internal redneck terror (Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC) while the Bushes were more internationalist in their pursuit of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Did the Clinton admin studiously avoid international conflict (apart from an aspirin factory missile strike) in order to let the Bushes take the global low road? Or was the internal threat under Clinton a form of time serving that allowed Al Qaeda to "develop" while our law enforcement and intelligence services were "occupied" chasing cornpone bad guys within our shores, throwing a shout-out in passing to the Philippines terror network as a segue into the crimes of the next admin?

Personally, I find your repeated questioning 'what was gained by dark forces out of OKC' annoying. You pose it as if you are on the side of most others here, but I think that is only a posture - and you are really trying to cast doubt on those who would question the official versions of OKC, 911 and by extension, most other deep events. I am not amused at the style of your posts. If you have what you think is a different analysis, kindly do it without the movie analogies, the cornpone bad guy allusions - but seriously. I think you have nothing to offer but doubt and that is your goal here [disguised]. For me, you do not deserve my time and energy explaining further the importance of OKC [or 911-ver.I and ver.II - or other deep events. I can't take your 'doubt' and 'questioning' serious when it repeats and repeats and repeats without what I consider any serious alternatives - only 'clever' diversions and asides. I'm starting to get the feeling of listening to a troll who is cleverly posing as a skeptic of the official versions. Stop asking questions, do you own homework and work and make your own decisions. Continuously asking others to prove X or Y to you is the work of a troll or a lazy person. IMHO.

McVey did it all himself, with a fertilizer bomb. There was no Individual #2 [and others] and no pre-planted bombs in the building, no looking the other way by the police and federal agents investigating, no conspiracy to assist the bombing by the FBI and other agencies and entities, no cover-up, no rush to kill and thus silence McVey. It had no training value for future mass bombings of buildings and had no purpose to test reactions of the public and media - so as to better manipulate them in future and larger false-flag operations. No pre-knowledge by some that the bombing occurred either. So, now you have your answers and can stop bothering the forum with your petulant and childish questioning over and over again......and your diversionary tactics which I think attempt to serve another agenda entirely. Looking back at your older posts, which are usually quaint or 'cute' two sentence comments, without much substance, I really begin to wonder how serious you are on this analysis of the deep state operations or whether you care to act as an agent of doubt and of turning the serious into a circus.

[David Andrews]

Peter,

Who asked you to prove anything?

Actually, I was looking for opinions other than yours. I won't go into the reasons why, but some will understand.

Personally, I think the answer I worked out in my last post is accurate: the Clinton admin concentrated on forced or sponsored acts of domestic terrorism in order to distract the public, and some law enforcement and intelligence operatives, from what was "developing" on the foreign terrorism horizon, and would be unleashed on us as soon as the administrations changed. "Unleashed" through the same combination of force and sponsorship, to be sure - that's a demonstrable intelligence and law enforcement modus operandi by now.

If you've read about relations between FBI, CIA and the NSC during the years 1993-2001, this is one of the conclusions you take away.

Current events in terrorism are so painful to me that sometimes I have to approach things from the angle of absurdist comedy to get a handle on them. I learned my absurdism not so much from Albert Camus, as from Thomas Pynchon and Joseph Heller, who wrote at a little distance from World War II. I still think that Heller's presentation of a dealmaking, moneymaking plan for the Luftwaffe to pay the USAF to bomb a US airfield is a prescient political idea that we've seen enacted later, in the terror game.

I come here to be educated, to ask others' opinions, to try to find new factual and procedural insights into the 1990s terror fronts as a run-up to the "Big Event" of 9/11. I'm interested in writing and publishing on this period. I doubt that it will be in a form that pleases you.

There isn't much renewable information on DPF about topics like OKC, the first WTC bombing, TWA 800, or the career of FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill (which deserves re-examination for the assumptions we hold about it) - so when a new post in a related thread pops up, I try to stir some interest that I can learn from.

That's all I'm after. I'm fishing, not hunting, and the DPF is safe with me.

You seem worried, however... Should no one respond to the threads here? If you look back on the DPF, Seamus Coogan called me a troll or a plant for asking questions in my posts. If you study my habits, however, I ask questions on topics where there isn't a terrible amount of expertise on display. And I'm always about purposes and intentions. Because - as you so kindly suggested - I can get my names and facts from books and documents.

Instead, I'm looking for meaning. I'm looking for why it's necessary for people to die, and for the living to be manipulated.

I'm interested also in why anyone in government, law enforcement or intelligence would go along with state-sponsored murder. For a shitty paycheck? For career advancement? Out of a false sense of power? Out of fear? Motives are important. Tendencies shouldn't be forgotten.

One of the current memes in JFK research is that the How and the Who aren't important, but the Why is paramount. Peter - are you worried that I'm asking Why? too much?

I'm worried that I rather exposed myself too much here, for your pleasure.

[Lauren Johnson]

[Dawn Meredith]

I mean, um, just looking at A Noble Lie, plus taking into account the books and other film I've watched on OKC...this seems like a very elaborate, costly, and wide-ranging operation to take on for informational purposes related to a future 9/11 attack, especially when data was gathered during the WTC truck bombing in February 1993.

I dunno - did I watch Three Days of the Condor too many times, and am brainwashed into looking for purposes? Whatever white supremacist/armed religious cult momentum the Clinton admin DOJ was obsessed with seems to have died out once the Bush regime returned.

So, why OKC? For instance, what did our law enforcement and intelligence agencies get out of it?

I mean, is this a characterological theme thing? Were the Clintons obsessed with internal redneck terror (Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC) while the Bushes were more internationalist in their pursuit of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Did the Clinton admin studiously avoid international conflict (apart from an aspirin factory missile strike) in order to let the Bushes take the global low road? Or was the internal threat under Clinton a form of time serving that allowed Al Qaeda to "develop" while our law enforcement and intelligence services were "occupied" chasing cornpone bad guys within our shores, throwing a shout-out in passing to the Philippines terror network as a segue into the crimes of the next admin?

Personally, I find your repeated questioning 'what was gained by dark forces out of OKC' annoying. You pose it as if you are on the side of most others here, but I think that is only a posture - and you are really trying to cast doubt on those who would question the official versions of OKC, 911 and by extension, most other deep events. I am not amused at the style of your posts. If you have what you think is a different analysis, kindly do it without the movie analogies, the cornpone bad guy allusions - but seriously. I think you have nothing to offer but doubt and that is your goal here [disguised]. For me, you do not deserve my time and energy explaining further the importance of OKC [or 911-ver.I and ver.II - or other deep events. I can't take your 'doubt' and 'questioning' serious when it repeats and repeats and repeats without what I consider any serious alternatives - only 'clever' diversions and asides. I'm starting to get the feeling of listening to a troll who is cleverly posing as a skeptic of the official versions. Stop asking questions, do you own homework and work and make your own decisions. Continuously asking others to prove X or Y to you is the work of a troll or a lazy person. IMHO.

McVey did it all himself, with a fertilizer bomb. There was no Individual #2 [and others] and no pre-planted bombs in the building, no looking the other way by the police and federal agents investigating, no conspiracy to assist the bombing by the FBI and other agencies and entities, no cover-up, no rush to kill and thus silence McVey. It had no training value for future mass bombings of buildings and had no purpose to test reactions of the public and media - so as to better manipulate them in future and larger false-flag operations. No pre-knowledge by some that the bombing occurred either. So, now you have your answers and can stop bothering the forum with your petulant and childish questioning over and over again......and your diversionary tactics which I think attempt to serve another agenda entirely. Looking back at your older posts, which are usually quaint or 'cute' two sentence comments, without much substance, I really begin to wonder how serious you are on this analysis of the deep state operations or whether you care to act as an agent of doubt and of turning the serious into a circus.

Peter this is a very harsh post. Asking questions is not indicative of trolling behavior, at least not to me. There is not a lot of activity here these days as facebook has been the place to post on all things conspiracy. That said there is now a LOT of censorship on facebook, so perhaps people will come back to forums. So please be kinder to the members we have who do still post here.
Dawn

[James Lateer]

I love harsh posts (especially when I get called a crackpot or a hare-brain, which has happened).

As for the issue of terrorism and the Clinton vs the Bush administration policy on terrorism, please allow me to chime in.

I was lucky enough to be watching both Waco and 9-11 in real time on live TV. My only resource on these things is "The Road To 9-11" by Peter Dale Scott, in addition to just ordinary tv watching.

I think Clinton had the first WTC bombing in 1993 on his watch as well as the USS Cole in 2000. On the USS Cole, when listening to Chicago radio on the day of the Cole bombing, a lady called into the radio show and said her son had been a sailor at the time on the USS Cole. She said her son mentioned that they had chronic problems with natural gas leaks on the Cole that were never fixed.

I also heard someone call in to a radio show and he said his grandfather had served on the USS Maine (that exploded in Havana Cuba). He said his grandfather told him that a a nearly identical sister ship to the USS Maine had also exploded.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/de...95#history

This link only says that coal dust explosions were common on the sister ship the USS Texas. The caller said that his grandfather believed that the Maine was sunk by just such an accidental explosion.

As for trying to pair Clinton with red-neck terrorism and GW Bush with Islamic terrorism, I don't buy that theory.

I would suggest that any sort of terrorism was beneficial to the National Security State because it justified their bloated budgets in the lean days after the fall of the evil empire, the USSR.

It seems like Timothy McVey had links to the Philippines and possible terrorists there but that the linkeage was never pursued by the investigators or the commission that was involved.

Terrorism was (and is) the bread and butter of the National Security State and I don't think they give a darn whether it's red-neck or Islamic.

James Lateer

[Richard Booth]

Good documentary except for the Alex Jones parts.

I strongly recommend reading "Oklahoma City: What the Investigation Missed and Why It Still Matters" by Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles if you're interesting in the OKC bombing.

One thing that I know with absolute certainty is that the OKC bombing was filmed by several surveillance cameras in the area--at least 2 of those cameras were described as 'positive' in FBI documents in terms of showing the suspects/vehicle.

The surveillance footage would show what all of the witnesses in Oklahoma City saw: two men in the Ryder truck. Given that Terry Nichols was at home in Kansas, who was this other man in the Ryder truck with McVeigh?

Who is John Doe #2?
Who is 'Robert Jacquez' -- a man who was with McVeigh and Nichols trying to buy a property with a cave on it in the fall of 1994

If you examine the witness accounts--which I have, from their FBI 302 reports, and from their Grand Jury testimony, it is immediately apparent that there were other people involved in this bombing which have never been apprehended much less identified.

That really bothers me. Who were these other people and why does the FBI insist that John Doe #2 doesn't exist when in their own documents it's clear that not only does he exist, but that as late as 2005 the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Operations Unit was worried that Terry Nichols might reveal John Doe #2's name: WHY

Here is a piece that aired on KFOR-TV in the fall of 1995 that is about the surveillance camera footage. Law enforcement sources described what was on the tape to newsmedia outlets at the time: TWO MEN EXIT THE RYDER TRUCK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SETF42xkyV0

One of those men has never been identified or apprehended.