Oklahoma City Cover Up?

[Daryl17]

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/the-terrance-yeakey-cover-up

Interesting story, I personally think its sensationalised. Just thought Id get your guys opinions.
Cheers

[Gravy]

I hate these third-person "supposedly" stories about dead people. What cowardly crap.

Officer Yeakey wasn't the only one on the scene. Hundreds of professional investigators from many departments and disciplines were involved.

[Foolmewunz]

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/the-terrance-yeakey-cover-up

Interesting story, I personally think its sensationalised. Just thought Id get your guys opinions.
Cheers

This is at least your second post on this topic. Care to elaborate?

[Daryl17]

This is at least your second post on this topic. Care to elaborate?
Elaborate on what? I thought the story was interesting so i posted it.

[Daryl17]

I hate these third-person "supposedly" stories about dead people. What cowardly crap.

Officer Yeakey wasn't the only one on the scene. Hundreds of professional investigators from many departments and disciplines were involved.
He was allegedly the first officer on the scene, heres a thread about it on a police officer forum http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64969.

[Foolmewunz]

Coincidentally, I found that today, too! I started a thread here on Cops arguing with Cops about 911 based on locating that site. I mention in that thread that TinMan seems to be a garden variety all purpose anti-everything conspiracist.

The author of that piece, Shannan, has made a brief career of the Yeakey story. Please google Yeakey & Suicide. Do you see any other articles than the ones from conspiradroid sites? Even those are mostly innuendo and connect-the-dot pieces.

They leave out all the interesting stuff from the original article in the New York Times, such as his divorce and the court order that he couldn't see his kids.

No one's seen this purported investigation file of his.

No one cites an actual interview or article citing an interview with his wife, but they all tell the tale of his phonecall saying that he told her that it wasn't what they were saying it was.

I've read Shannan's articles, and he never cites a source for anyhing, yet claims things like interview details (the friend, the ex-wfie) and cites "independent investigators"... What independent investigators? When was the wife interviewed? By Whom?

This is shoddy journalism at its worst. An unfortunate, even tragic event, and because the person is associated with one of their pet mining sites for conspiracies, the loons turn it into a grand adventure.

Alex Jones is not a legitimate news source.

[Foolmewunz]

Elaborate on what? I thought the story was interesting so i posted it.

But now this (post#5) is your third link to a different article on Yeakey's death. Each is from a conspiracy fantasist site. Do we assume by this that you are buying into this theory?

[Daryl17]

But now this (post#5) is your third link to a different article on Yeakey's death. Each is from a conspiracy fantasist site. Do we assume by this that you are buying into this theory?
Oh I thought you meant it was my third post on Oklahoma City, I had no idea Id posted another link on the subject in a different thread, my memory isnt great. Do I buy into the theory? I don't have enough evidence at my disposal to make a judgement, which is why I came here as alot of people, especially Gravy, have a good general knowledge of all things conspiracy theory.
Here is the new york times article http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE7D71539F932A25756C0A960958260
if anyone wants to check it out.
Also heres an interview
with Terrance Yeakey's wife:
(Real Player)
Part 1
http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey1.rm (http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey1.rm)
Part 2
http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey2.rm (http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey2.rm)

[beachnut]

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/the-terrance-yeakey-cover-up

Interesting story, I personally think its sensationalised. Just thought Id get your guys opinions.
Cheers
What is your opinion?

Besides the fact Tim did the bombing, the only bomb planted at OKC which can be see from photographic evidence and since the building was so close to the road.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447453f8494776fe.jpg
Look how the bomb is almost in the building which accounts for how the blast was able to destroy most of that side and leave a giant hole in the ground too. It also blasted people who were in a building a half block away through offices and walls. One bomb, two men, and some drug friends, who are out to kill some nice people, because bombing Dallas was too hard. Tim the crazy man, who kills to avenge crazy people, killed some of the nicest people around. What the heck is your point of bringing up stuff about this when you have zero evidence to support it.

Just do a google search on Terrance Yeakey, and all you CT dreams come truth with lies and junk. A feast for disrespectful dolts of the world who can fine all the rotten vile lies of the ignorant and be fulfilled.

[Daryl17]

What is your opinion?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447453f8494776fe.jpg
Look how the bomb is almost in the building.........
What bomb?, I dont see a bomb in that picture.

[Gravy]

What bomb?, I dont see a bomb in that picture.You are making sport of the sad death of a police officer. Please stop this now.

[beachnut]

What bomb?, I dont see a bomb in that picture.
I meant to say Tim parked his truck just in front or near where the car is! See how close to the building the road is! The building is on the road, the bomb was essential next to and under the building, almost in it.

See how close the bomb was to the building. Use your imagination, the truck was parked almost under the building. Look again at the photo, now go find some bomb photos, and next time instead of posting junk, tell those who put it on the web to find a life.

Go there and meet some people and learn why Tim is just an idiot murderer. A dumb murderer.

Next time use your head and see if you can figure out what an idiot like me is trying to say.

[Daryl17]

You are making sport of the sad death of a police officer. Please stop this now.
Have you bothered listening to his widows interview, or are you just going to play the 'disrespecting the dead' card?

[calebprime]

It seems you are serious.

Rather than ask people to listen to some interview, why don't you post--in summary form--whatever evidence points to a cover-up, if that's what you believe?

People will argue with you, but at least that isn't being coy.

There is a way to do it that is respectful enough.

What's the big picture, in summary?

[beachnut]

Have you bothered listening to his widows interview, or are you just going to play the 'disrespecting the dead' card?
There were no extra bombs in OKC. If you want to argue extra bombs in OKC stop hiding behind manufactured junk about a cop who had problems, and just say what you think. If you have not been to OKC, if you have not researched bombs, if you have not researched the policeman's suicide and identified the lies yet, why are you wasting time. Do the research first and then try to make a case for what ever Looney ideas you come up with. ( You got your junk for a web site of idiots, and the stuff you want people to listen to is so full of junk it hurts. Why do people actually listen to lies? How can you believe anything from a bunch of dumb people making up stuff who are too dumb to anything but make up lies? )

If you do not stand up and blast the lies from these idiot web sites, you are the only one disrespecting those who died by Tim the coward of all time.

[Daryl17]

There were no extra bombs in OKC. If you want to argue extra bombs in OKC stop hiding behind manufactured junk about a cop who had problems, and just say what you think. If you have not been to OKC, if you have not researched bombs, if you have not researched the policeman's suicide and identified the lies yet, why are you wasting time. Do the research first and then try to make a case for what ever Looney ideas you come up with. ( You got your junk for a web site of idiots, and the stuff you want people to listen to is so full of junk it hurts. Why do people actually listen to lies? How can you believe anything from a bunch of dumb people making up stuff who are too dumb to anything but make up lies? )

If you do not stand up and blast the lies from these idiot web sites, you are the only one disrespecting those who died by Tim the coward of all time.
Is his widow a dumb lying loon? By your logic she is. How do you know theyre lies? Very bad logical thinking on your part. I looked at the site and I was skeptical, I then listened to his widows testimony, I urged others to do so. I have since been attacked by three different people. The attack by Gravy, who I respect a great deal was particularly hurtful. I again, urge you to listen to his widows testimony.

[Daryl17]

It seems you are serious.

Rather than ask people to listen to some interview, why don't you post--in summary form--whatever evidence points to a cover-up, if that's what you believe?

People will argue with you, but at least that isn't being coy.

There is a way to do it that is respectful enough.

What's the big picture, in summary?
Just because I link someone to an interview doesnt mean I believe it, are you suggesting I should only post items I believe in? Many people on here have linked to Loose Change, TerrorStorm etc and Im pretty sure they dont believe the theories presented. How have I been coy, and how have I been disrespectful as you imply I have?

[calebprime]

I'd be interested to hear whether there was an Oklahoma City Cover Up--the title of the thread.

Do you have some evidence or theory beside this interview that you want to present?

(Just so you understand--there are only a few rare individuals who have posted here--like David Jay Jordan--who are interesting all by themselves. Otherwise, I'm in it for the issues. There are an infinite number of wild goose chases--so it's up to you to make the case that there's something here. Given that there is a question of taste, the bar is set a little higher than usual.)

I'm suggesting that you drop this unless you think there is a real question of a cover-up--for what it's worth.

But, I have much more respect for someone like Gravy--or Beachnut, or R Mackey-- than I do for my own opinion in this matter, etc. My respect goes to people who are more knowledgeable about a subject, more committed, and have longer posting histories.

Other than that, obviously, you can do whatever you want.

[Gravy]

Is his widow a dumb lying loon?She's not his widow, she's his ex-wife. I don't assume that she's dumb, or lying, or a loon. She certainly gladly did an interview with kooks who said, "He was obviously tortured and murdered." "Well, they did Vince Foster."

Absolutely zero substantiation is given for the vague second- and third-hand claims of "suspicious" anything.

And in the 10 years since that interview, Daryl? Got any news?

The attack by Gravy, who I respect a great deal was particularly hurtful.I'm not here to hold your hand. If you'd be fine with your children being subject to fools spreading rumors about you after your death, then please feel free to have fun with this police officer's suicide in 1996.

[DGM]

AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK

I've heard the interviews and the source makes me very suspicious. I've seen a lot evidence on this subject (OKC) and see no reason to believe what she is saying. See seems to believe but there's many reason for that.

DGM

[Daryl17]

She's not his widow, she's his ex-wife. I don't assume that she's dumb, or lying, or a loon. She certainly gladly did an interview with kooks who said, "He was obviously tortured and murdered." "Well, they did Vince Foster."

Absolutely zero substantiation is given for the vague second- and third-hand claims of "suspicious" anything.

And in the 10 years since that interview, Daryl? Got any news?

I'm not here to hold your hand. If you'd be fine with your children being subject to fools spreading rumors about you after your death, then please feel free to have fun with this police officer's suicide in 1996.
Ive bolded the parts which I take to be contradictions on your part.

It appears that you did take the time to listen to the interview, which I commend you for, agreed she was his ex-wife but they were still on very good terms and she is the mother of his children.

Do you see a reason for her to lie, I certainly dont, I actually find her somewhat credible.

Why would someone disrespect the memory of the father of their children for a radio interview, presumabley unpaid? It just doesnt add up to me.

[Daryl17]

I've heard the interviews and the source makes me very suspicious. I've seen a lot evidence on this subject (OKC) and see no reason to believe what she is saying. See seems to believe but there's many reason for that.

DGM
Care to name but one?

[Gravy]

It appears that you did take the time to listen to the interview, which I commend you for, agreed she was his ex-wife but they were still on very good terms and she is the mother of his children.

Do you see a reason for her to lie, I certainly dont, I actually find her somewhat credible.

Why would someone disrespect the memory of the father of their children for a radio interview, presumabley unpaid? It just doesnt add up to me.
He was stressed-out? Spooky!

They wouldn't let him into the crime scene at night, days later, when he wasn't on duty? Highly suspicious!

They wanted his report? Shocking!

Someone said he shared a safe-deposit box with a doctor? Someone should find out about that – in 1997 – before reporting it as mysterious on the radio!

A cop who was troubled killed himself? Unheard of (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-08-police-suicides_x.htm)!

Stop dropping the links off at the pool, Daryl. If you are interested in a subject, then do your research, and get your information from reliable sources. I suggest first thinking about how to tell accurate information from rumor-mongering. These sources may help you: The Basics: Critical Thinking, Informal Logic, Fallacies, The Scientific Method, Standards of Evidence (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thebasic%3Acriticalthinking%2Clogic%2Cscientif)

[DGM]

Care to name but one?
Traumatic stress disorder

[Daryl17]

He was stressed-out? Spooky!

They wouldn't let him into the crime scene at night, days later, when he wasn't on duty? Highly suspicious!

They wanted his report? Shocking!

Someone said he shared a safe-deposit box with a doctor? Someone should find out about that – in 1997 – before reporting it as mysterious on the radio!

A cop who was troubled killed himself? Unheard of (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-08-police-suicides_x.htm)!

Stop dropping the links off at the pool, Daryl. If you are interested in a subject, then do your research, and get your information from reliable sources. I suggest first thinking about how to tell accurate information from rumor-mongering. These sources may help you: The Basics: Critical Thinking, Informal Logic, Fallacies, The Scientific Method, Standards of Evidence (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thebasic%3Acriticalthinking%2Clogic%2Cscientif)
The question is why did he want to return to the crime scene, not why he wasnt allowed.

They lost his report, he felt threatened and suspected foul play.

The Doctor was someone whom his ex-wife alleges had witnessed similar things to Yeakey, things which they both felt were suspicious.

Your link to high rates of police suicide means absoulutely nothing, there are higher rates of terrorism in Islam than in Hinduism, it doesnt mean that every Muslim accused of being a terrorist is one.

Giving me links on how to look at evidence is pretty authoritarian and patronising, nonetheless I will check them out.

[T.A.M.]

Daryl17, I think the issue, in terms of others approach to you, may have been the ambiguity with which you posted the OP. Usually, I say usually, when someone posts a particular CT to look at, their opinion on said CT is clear in the OP. Reading your OP, I wasnt sure if you believed or not, and as I read on, your posts subsequently made it clear you are, in fact, still undecided.

I think that most people who post here tend to be very strongly for or against a CT, so ambiguity on one, will often be percieved as falling off the fence in favor of the CT.

Of course, I am only speculating, and cannot speak for anyone else here but myself.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

The question is why did he want to return to the crime scene, not why he wasnt allowed.No, the question is why you've chosen, based on information you've gleaned from kook websites, to bother us with utterly unsubstantiated rumors about a dead cop from 11 years ago.

Got something new? Got any evidence? If not, then either learn about the subject by doing legitimate research or have the decency not to support rumor mongering about the dead.

[Foolmewunz]

Daryl,
(Good morning from Hong Kong - I didn't mean to walk away from this challenge, but I see others have readily picked up where I left off and was heading. But sleep is mandatory!)

As I mentioned earlier, if you can find one reputable source for articles on this topic, please cite it. The Times article has no elements of the conspiracy in it; it's just an article about his suicide.

As others (and I) have mentioned, you have to look at the sources of these things critically. If every article mentioning suspicious circumstances is from a loon site, then it's probably just some other non-issue that they're trying to make into a cause celebre.
Every scrap of evidence in this is hearsay, innuendo, or connect the dots.

I'm not even certain that Shannan's the original source for all of this, but he's certainly the one who's done the most to keep it alive. It's gained circulation in the last couple of years, mostly through one Anti-Everything site or another picking up one of his articles.

But why not look at the Shannan article (the TinMan post you linked in post #5). Not the whole thing, just one element. I've read numerous articles on these sites, and they constantly ask why there was no autopsy. That assumes that the body was bagged and boxed and buried. Yet, Shannan has what apparently look like autopsy diagrams. If not a full autopsy, then a coroner or ME's exam, at minimum. (I'm not a doctor, maybe the doctor from Smallwood country could comment on what that document is.)

The point here is that either that's an autopsy/coroner/ME/post-mortem diagram of some sort - in which case the "How come no autopsy" nonsense is shown wrong. Or, it's a fake. Either of those choices tears a great hole in the "conspiracy". If it's a legitimate document, then obviously those articles are embroidering. If it's not legitimate (I have no reason to suspect it isn't, I'm just taking the devil's advocate position), then someone is making crap up.

Here's a link to Shannan's site. Anything stand out?
http://www.patshannan.com
Just the short list of bad things that evil gubmint did from that page:
Montana Freemen
Oklahoma City
911
M.L. King
JFK



Further, here's a link to the organization he lists himself as investigative journalist for.
http://www.apfn.org/
Like Paul Simon said to Mrs. Robinson, and I parphrase, stroll around the place and make yourself at home.

Now you see the sources of the "conspiracy". If a stop sign gets knocked down in a car accident, these guys see the FBI behind it!

The whole "lecture" (from everyone) on doing your research is that you have to look at this stuff with a skeptic's eye. Not JUST the government reports, but read the theorists' writings and make the same demands of them. I have a long discussion (well, a long post of mine and two responses from him/her) with Childlike Empress on this topic particularly viz Daniel Hopsicker. (He's the darling of the left; Shannan's trying to become the darling of the right.)

The ability to tell a good story does not make that story true.

[Lyte Trip]

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-8029074405299389970&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=okc+bomb&vidurl=/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-8029074405299389970%26q%3Dokc%2Bbomb%26total%3D34% 26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26 plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H21hzGMUY_hBqU5DdgHXzI7dKt2plQ
http://independence.net/okc/congressbombreport.htm

[A W Smith]

It appears that you did take the time to listen to the interview, which I commend you for, agreed she was his ex-wife but they were still on very good terms and she is the mother of his children.

Why would someone disrespect the memory of the father of their children for a radio interview, presumabley unpaid? It just doesnt add up to me.


They were on good terms?

Excerpt From the times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE7D71539F932A25756C0A960958260)you yourself posted a link to

Sergeant Yeakey was divorced and was legally prevented from entering the house he and his former wife had shared with their daughters, ages 2 and 4, Officer Ramsey said. When asked about possible reasons that Sergeant Yeakey might have been despondent, Officer Ramsey said, "His ex-wife, his love for his two daughters that he could not see."
The police are investigating a report that Sergeant Yeakey had violated an order barring him from going near his former wife, said Capt. Bill Citty, a spokesman. Sergeant Yeakey also had a similar order against her

[DGM]

I didn't see where Gen. Partin got this degree in structural engineering from. I also don't see where he examined the site itself. Could you help me with these points?

http://independence.net/okc/congressbombreport.htm

[DGM]

presumabley unpaid

Why do you presume this?

[3bodyproblem]

What is a "simulator device"? I never quite understood what that meant. It's in the police report but I've never heard it explained.

[Lyte Trip]

I didn't see where Gen. Partin got this degree in structural engineering from. I also don't see where he examined the site itself. Could you help me with these points?

http://independence.net/okc/congressbombreport.htm

Hmm. I didn't see that either. Maybe that's because he doesn't have one.

No one said he ever visited the site.

Are you denying that there were undetonated bombs found?

And that they were found inside as well?

[3bodyproblem]

Are you denying that there were undetonated bombs found?

And that they were found inside as well?

I will, the police report only says a second "simulator device" was found, and not in the building. Is there another police report?

[R.Mackey]

What is a "simulator device"? I never quite understood what that meant. It's in the police report but I've never heard it explained.

Training dummies. Things that are designed to look like explosives, but are in fact inert. Kind of like a rubber gun used for handling and retention drills. If you were poking through the rubble and found one of these, without anybody around or tags on it to tell you it was a fake, you might certainly raise a preliminary (and ultimately false) alarm.

This was all discussed before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1569591#post1569591). Nothing new here.

[3bodyproblem]

Training dummies. Things that are designed to look like explosives, but are in fact inert. Kind of like a rubber gun used for handling and retention drills. If you were poking through the rubble and found one of these, without anybody around or tags on it to tell you it was a fake, you might certainly raise a preliminary (and ultimately false) alarm.

This was all discussed before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1569591#post1569591). Nothing new here.
Thanks for the link. I've found very little on the net, and CT's always try to throw this in your face when you corner them. If you say "I have no idea, I thought that was a done deal" they lol and say you have no clue what the government has done. Drives me nuts.


Oh that and they don't know how seismic waves travel in a medium like dirt, that drives me nuts too.

[beachnut]

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-8029074405299389970&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=okc+bomb&vidurl=/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-8029074405299389970%26q%3Dokc%2Bbomb%26total%3D34% 26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26 plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H21hzGMUY_hBqU5DdgHXzI7dKt2plQ
http://independence.net/okc/congressbombreport.htm
Why is it you dug up some nut case stuff. An idiot general, too old to tie his shoes makes up a story and the nuts jump on the idiot train to stupid land. Glad you think these source are nuts. Thanks for showing the world the junk stuff about OKC. Yes you have found sources so far out and weird, it is clear they have manufactured stuff.

Is this how you learned to manufacture your evidence of the fiction you produce about the Pentagon?

Funny stuff, simulators. http://www.explotrain.com/products.htm I wonder what kind were found? Once again you believe in lies, the rest of the world uses facts. Simulators are used to make noise for exercises. Law enforcement uses them, and if you had studied and researched some you would know they are used to make noise, and could hurt you if you are dumb enough to be next to it when it pops. But it is not capable of damage. Do you understand? Why are you unable to research stuff and come to rational conclusions? Prison Planet will publish whatever you make up, go tell lies to them.

[Foolmewunz]

Training dummies. Things that are designed to look like explosives, but are in fact inert. Kind of like a rubber gun used for handling and retention drills. If you were poking through the rubble and found one of these, without anybody around or tags on it to tell you it was a fake, you might certainly raise a preliminary (and ultimately false) alarm.

This was all discussed before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1569591#post1569591). Nothing new here.

Bolding/emphasis mine!

Thanks for the diversion, Lyte. But we're discussing Yeakey's suicide, not the confused news reports of the morning nor the conpiraciesRus.com "investigation".

Say, I know.... if there's all this information out there why don't we empanel a grand jury to investigate the claims. Oops, they did that, didn't they? A suit brought by local conspiracy-lite people in OKC, which got the exact results that they didn't want!

[3bodyproblem]

So this whole conspiracy revolves around the simulators and the incredulity of the damage done by the fertbomb? That's it? :rolleyes:

[JimBenArm]

So this whole conspiracy revolves around the simulators and the incredulity of the damage done by the fertbomb? That's it? :rolleyes:
Yep, that's it.

[Foolmewunz]

So this whole conspiracy revolves around the simulators and the incredulity of the damage done by the fertbomb? That's it? :rolleyes:

That, and unconnected dots.

[SpitfireIX]

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-8029074405299389970&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=okc+bomb&vidurl=/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-8029074405299389970%26q%3Dokc%2Bbomb%26total%3D34% 26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26 plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H21hzGMUY_hBqU5DdgHXzI7dKt2plQ
http://independence.net/okc/congressbombreport.htm


Here are some observations by General Partin concerning an attack on another US Government building, from an article (http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml) in The New American.

Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin, USAF (retired), an expert witness who has proven his independence and willingness to challenge coverups in the past. One of the world’s leading missile and military explosives experts, Gen. Partin was director of the U.S. Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory, where he designed and tested many types of missiles, warheads, and ordnance against various building structures and armor.

Partin did not personally witness the crash, but he lives near the Pentagon, is very familiar with the building’s structure, and began studying the evidence immediately after the event. Does he see any problems with the official Flight 77 crash scenario? “No, not at all,” he told THE NEW AMERICAN. “I’ve seen the videos claiming that it was a missile, not a 757, that hit the Pentagon,” he says, angrily dismissing the claim in scatological terms.

“When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it’s going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11,” Partin said. “If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That’s why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder — the plane fuselage — is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it’s going to penetrate quite a ways before it’s spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces.”


You obviously accept General Partin as a credible source on the Oklahoma City bombing. So logically you must accept him as a credible source on the Pentagon attack, right, Lyte Trip? Please comment.

[DGM]

So this whole conspiracy revolves around the simulators and the incredulity of the damage done by the fertbomb? That's it? :rolleyes:
Man I missed the whole debate. I remember the cover-up had a lot more embellishments 10 years ago. I wonder what the 9/11 CTs will look like in 2013.

[Gravy]

I wonder what the 9/11 CTs will look like in 2013.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg

[slingblade]

Why would someone disrespect the memory of the father of their children for a radio interview, presumabley unpaid? It just doesnt add up to me.

I'd do it in a heartbeat, if anyone asked me.

[Daryl17]

Here are some observations by General Partin concerning an attack on another US Government building, from an article (http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml) in The New American.




You obviously accept General Partin as a credible source on the Oklahoma City bombing. So logically you must accept him as a credible source on the Pentagon attack, right, Lyte Trip? Please comment.

You take his testimony from 9/11 but not OKC, why is that?

[The Doc]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg



That one will never get old. I laugh every time I see it.

[Daryl17]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg


What have 9/11 truthers got to do with this subject?

[Foolmewunz]

What have 9/11 truthers got to do with this subject?

It's called a "thread" for a reason. The discussion threads its way through various posts.

e.g. someone posted a comment that the OKC conspiracy theories were much wilder and whackier closer to the event, and wondered where the 911 conspiracists and their theories would be in ten years time.

Then, Gravy posted a funny pic of a lonely troofer sitting by a large sign with 911 Truth slogans painted on it.

See? It was a diversion. You've been out, and people were discussing things, and well one thing leads to another..... Welcome to the internet.

[SpitfireIX]

You take his testimony from 9/11 but not OKC, why is that?


Why do you assume that I accept or reject Partin's "testimony" on either subject? I did not state my own views one way or the other, or even whether I believe the "official" version of the Oklahoma City bombing.

[Daryl17]

Why do you assume that I accept or reject Partin's "testimony" on either subject? I did not state my own views one way or the other, or even whether I believe the "official" version of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Okay, then what are your opinions on both subjects?

[calebprime]

Daryl17, did I miss the post where you state your position, or state your case?

A good prosecuter makes a case and doesn't get bogged down in fighting with the jury.

This, of course, is just metaphorical: You're not a prosecuter. But you are trying to persuade us of something, no?

Could you list the main reasons why you think there is a good question of a cover-up?

Or do you concede that this rests on one person's analysis of the bomb blast, well-answered questions about stuff found in the rubble, and this interview, which you have yet to describe?

quote:

"So this whole conspiracy revolves around the simulators and the incredulity of the damage done by the fertbomb? That's it?"

[SpitfireIX]

Okay, then what are your opinions on both subjects?


My question was not rhetorical; my apologies for not making that clear. I'd like for you to thoroughly explain why you assumed what you assumed, if you would, before I state my views on the matter. I request that you answer first, in order to ensure that my answer does not prejudice yours.

[Daryl17]

My question was not rhetorical; my apologies for not making that clear. I'd like for you to thoroughly explain why you assumed what you assumed, if you would, before I state my views on the matter. I request that you answer first, in order to ensure that my answer does not prejudice yours.
I assumed you believed in his testimony because you have 'Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims' in your sig which would lead me to believe that you regard the 'official' story of 9/11 as true, as do I.

[SpitfireIX]

I assumed you believed in his testimony because you have 'Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims' in your sig which would lead me to believe that you regard the 'official' story of 9/11 as true, as do I.


Sorry for the delay in responding--I've been working a lot the past several days and only been here sporadically. To answer your question about Partin's opinions, I believe he is correct about a plane's having hit the Pentagon, as this is consistent with the overwhelming evidence that American 77 did in fact hit the Pentagon.

As for the Murrah building, I can't say at the moment whether Partin's opinion is correct, but my working assumption is that it is not. The reason for this is that I have not studied the Oklahoma City bombing in any great detail. As Jay Windley has pointed out, because of the impossibility of proving the nonexistence of government conspiracies, we must assume their absence and require (extraordinary) proof that any particular conspiracy does exist. In other words, the default truth condition for government conspiracies is "false."

However, whether or not I believe Partin is beside the point--the point is that Lyte Trip brought up Partin as a kind of expert witness on the Murrah building attack, evidently without realizing that Partin has contradicted Lyte Trip's pet "theory" about the Pentagon attack. Lyte Trip's witness; Lyte Trip's problem, and Lyte Trip's responsibility to reconcile the inconsistency between Partin's opinions about the Pentagon and Lyte Trip's so-called theory.

So, Lyte Trip, I renew my request. Please comment on General Partin's opinion of the Pentagon attack.

[Zep]

Have we another case requiring...the Forum :wackypoliceman: