Waco, Red Mosque, Vyg Community of Old Believers [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Waco, Red Mosque, Vyg Community of Old Believers

stilicho

14th July 2007, 01:28 AM

Zep

14th July 2007, 01:37 AM

What about those Joooz who holed up in Masada, taunting the authorities! They had a doozy of a time getting THEM out!

uk_dave

14th July 2007, 01:44 AM

and the al-aqsa mosque incident.

Perhaps it doesn't play out in the western (US) media as much because... well, because it's not so uncommon.

And anyway, US whackjobs are much more entertaining because they hold out for the right not to pay tax or the right to illegally sell arms. The mid-east and pakistani 'rebels' hold out....for...ummmmm... ermmmm.... stuff.

stilicho

14th July 2007, 02:01 AM

And anyway, US whackjobs are much more entertaining because they hold out for the right not to pay tax or the right to illegally sell arms. The mid-east and pakistani 'rebels' hold out....for...ummmmm... ermmmm.... stuff.

You know what, dave? That bothers me.

The Anabaptists, the Vyg Community, the Branch Davidians, and the occupants (sorry, I don't know the sect's complete name) of the Red Mosque all have more in common with one another than with those of us who generally accept our version of civilisation and power structures. I wouldn't have wanted to be the people who shot them or ordered the shootings, but I know why people wind up dying in confrontations with authority.

But why aren't the libertarians and the "inside jobbers" forging philosophical ties with those who really have died because of the intervention of the sovereign state? (I mean, except for Waco). Why must 9/11 be an "inside job" but the attempts on Musharraf's life are not?

I ought to hire myself out to these people as a consultant!

StoneWT

14th July 2007, 08:22 AM

stilicho

15th July 2007, 01:36 AM

The Waco Branch Davidians were multiracial.
That doesn't negate the question--probably underscores it.

Travis

15th July 2007, 02:00 AM

I haven't seen too much on the correlation between Waco and the Red Mosque assault. Historically, these things happen all the time. A bunch of radicals hole up somewhere and bait on the powers-that-be.

In the case of the Branch Davidians, the response was pretty quick and efficient. In the case of the Red Mosque, the "official response" was slow and only became news in the west after Chinese citizens were kidnapped and held.

There are historical parallels, too, significantly the Vyg Community and the Anabaptists of Munster.

Are these non-current, non-American "gubmint conspiracies" just too oblique or obscure to be elevated to cult status? Is it because conspiratroids are only concerned about "gubmint conspiracies" against white Americans?

Oh how I tire of having to hear about the Anabaptists of Munster in the media. It's like all they talk about on MTV now-a-days. Nothing like failed attempts at creating theocracies to get the kids all worked up. Of course it's just the tip of the iceberg. Soon the teen girls will have shirts proclaiming the greatness of the Batenburger Anabaptists and decrying the wussy pacifist ways of the Mennonites. Can a TV show dedicated to John of Leiden be too far off? What about a new snack food called Knipperdolling?

PhantomWolf

15th July 2007, 06:39 PM

In the case of the Branch Davidians, the response was pretty quick and efficient.

You call 51 days after the initial search warrent fiasco, quick and efficent?

stilicho

15th July 2007, 07:12 PM

Actually they probably could have cornered Koresh when he went out jogging, before the stand-off even happened.

But that wasn't really the point.

The Red Mosque thing began in March, as I trust, with the kidnapping of the brothel owner. Possibly prior to that.

My question was why Waco is a conspiracy but the Red Mosque, the Anabaptists of Munster, and the Vyg Community are not. I sort of hint at it myself. It's because those other things didn't happen in the USA and are not always current.

Conspiracists hold Waco and Ruby Ridge very close to their hearts.

PhantomWolf

15th July 2007, 10:45 PM

Actually they probably could have cornered Koresh when he went out jogging, before the stand-off even happened.

Except they weren't after him. They were watching him, but they wanted to check out the kids and make sure they were alright, and that meant going into the compound. They used the firearms offenses as an excuse to get the warrants so they could get in, but because the Davidians got a warning they were coming they were able to arm up and instead of being unarmed when the ATF got there, there was armed opposition leading to a fire fight and 10 deaths (4 ATF, 6 Davidians)

Conspiracists hold Waco and Ruby Ridge very close to their hearts.

Which even itself isn't a sign of an "Evil Government" but rather of elements inside Law Enforcement that have no understanding out the world outside their own heads. Ruby Ridge was a stuff up, nothing more and nothing less. Those in charge of the Marshals, Courts and finally the FBI had their craniums shoved so far up where the sun doesn't shine they couldn't see what was going on right in front of them. Their bloody mindedness and then downright trigger happy behaviour was a travasty, but it wasn't the big ole nasty Gubermint out to get Weaver. It was a bunch of idiots that shouldn't have been let lose with a paper bag sending in inadequently trained peudomilitaries to do things that a good negotionator and telephone could have done in an hour. Heck if the stupid Judge had simply noted that the letter date was wrong and resheduled the appearance there'd never have been a problem in the first place, well other than the fact the ATF and crowd seemed to have picked Weaver to be their patsy and were willing to do anything to get him to play ball and do their bidding. I also don't think that it helped that instead of getting good legal advice the Weavers found a lawyer that seems to have been as nutty as they were.

Devil's Advocate

15th July 2007, 10:51 PM

All I have to say about Waco is two hours long.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5510108493532885562&q=Waco+-+A+New+Revelation&total=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2962656895645965329&q=Waco+-+A+New+Revelation&total=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

That was seriously eye opening. I was shocked. I never heard about D-Boys being deployed at Waco.
:(

LashL

15th July 2007, 10:57 PM

Pardalis

15th July 2007, 11:16 PM

A bunch of lunatics trying to play victims.

Devil's Advocate

15th July 2007, 11:21 PM

Could you please summarize the two hours of video you posted or at least provide the conclusions that you drew from it? I don't have time to watch it at present.

The parts that made my jaw drop was when the FBI negotiator was on the phone with one of the people in the compound, near the end, they told them to stay inside the compound.
The guy inside asked him what the FBI was saying because they were coming out after David finished his last scroll writing, and the FBI negotiator said something along the lines of,"If any of you come out, then.......action will be taken to force you to retreat back inside." (Conversation ends)
If you cannot read into that statement...then you have problems.
That was,"If you come out, we open fire."

Then, the assault happened.
It was admitted that one of the best units in the military was used there. They reported two as advisor's, but reports from others there said their were ten, and implied they were firing into the compound. (It is against the Constitution to use military units in civilian situations like that, and the unit in question could only be used if approved by the President)

Countless lies by the ATF/FBI, hiding evidence, destroying evidence, using explosives on the 'bunker' the women and children were in. They started the fire. They lied about the CS gas that was used, and the use of incendiaries, etc.
FLIR proved that people were firing into the compound after the fire started.
(The FBI said they never fired a shot, which may be true in a way, it may have been the soldiers)
It showed an escape point from the fire was cut off by soldiers who were firing into it. It was stated 14 people in that area died from gunshot wounds, not fire.
Watch it, seriously.

People telling it all were former FBI that were there, Fire/Rescue personnel, etc.

A jury found the survivors innocent of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, but charged them with use of fire arms.
The federal judge could set the sentence, and sentenced them to multiple life sentences for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. WTF?

Pardalis

15th July 2007, 11:33 PM

The funny bit is when the movies tries to makes us believe the FBI knew the Davidians were planning on setting fire to the place, and give us tapes of conversations with the FBI negociator and the Davidian negotiator. But the only reference to fire that is given by the Davidian is unintelligible religious gibberish no one could have interpreted on the spot. That could have meant anything. :rolleyes:

Hindight really is 20/20, but on the spot negotiations with crazy lunatics is so much more difficult.

Devil's Advocate

15th July 2007, 11:42 PM

Pardalis

15th July 2007, 11:46 PM

And a conspiracy theory movie doesn't make it true.

Devil's Advocate

15th July 2007, 11:57 PM

And a conspiracy theory movie doesn't make it true.

Ok, evidence proves it, FBI, Rescue Workers, and other witnesses prove it, FLIR video proves it...what disproves it?

And, your evaluation of their mental state is pointless. No one that knew them thought anything bad about them. They may not have agreed with their religion, but that is a part of the freedoms we enjoy. Religious freedom.

I forgot to add, if the DB people would have wanted to ambush the ATF agents, they could have cut them apart while they were on the cattle trailers. Anyone setting an ambush that has even a slight mind for military tactics would have killed every ATF agent in their first wave before they could have reacted to it.

Pardalis

16th July 2007, 12:04 AM

Ok, evidence proves it, FBI, Rescue Workers, and other witnesses prove it, FLIR video proves it...what disproves it?

I'm sorry I'm not taking the word of one movie as evidence, I would have to see more from other sources.

It might be eye opening to you, I'm not impressed.

Religious freedom.

Religious freedom to set fire to a camp filled with people? Religious freedom to crash airline planes into office buildings?

Yeah right.

Devil's Advocate

16th July 2007, 12:12 AM

I'm sorry I'm not taking the word of one movie as evidence, I would have to see more from other sources.

From whom? The evidence fairy? Are the FBI agents that were there not good enough witnesses? Is the FLIR video not good enough?

It might be eye opening to you, I'm not impressed.
How could you be impressed by it if you're too close minded to even watch it?
You've made up your mind about it already. Don't you complain about the CT crowd for the same reason? Denying evidence? Oh, but it's OK for you. Double standard noted.

Religious freedom to set fire to a camp filled with people? Religious freedom to crash airline planes into office buildings?
Yeah right.
No, the FBI did not set fire to it because of religion, it was for revenge.
Crashing planes into buildings are marks of insanity, not religion.

Pardalis

16th July 2007, 12:27 AM

From whom? The evidence fairy? Are the FBI agents that were there not good enough witnesses? Is the FLIR video not good enough?

I'm not convinced. I would have to look further into it than just a movie.

Denying evidence?

I'm not denying evidence, I'm not satisfied with the way it's presented in a sensationalistic movie.

No, the FBI did not set fire to it because of religion,

I'm not conviced of the "evidence" presented in the movie that it was the FBI who set the fire. The evidence is not convincing, since the Waco nutjobs did pour fuel in the first place it's more likely that they themselves ignited it.

it was for revenge.

Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense. :rolleyes:

Crashing planes into buildings are marks of insanity, not religion.

The two can be synonymous sometimes.

leftysergeant

16th July 2007, 12:45 AM

Devil's Advocate

16th July 2007, 02:34 AM

If the video being discvussed here is Waco: Rules of Engagement, I would suggest that it is probably about 90% BS. I have seen screen captures of the supposed FLIR shots of soldiers firing into the comnpound, but they show, as far as I can tell, no such thing. I see muzzle flashes, or at least what some dork called muzzle flashes, but no weapons or personnel.

How do you know that the tape was not made by a co-conspirator of the surviving Branch Davidians who were suing for damages? Like that Australian twit who bailed out but left his kids to fry?

I have not had an opportunity to review the film. I am working with an old piece of junk computer that pukes on long video down-loads, and I have only seen copies of the video for sale on John Trochmann's table at the gun shows. I hesitate to do business with him unless he is the only source for something I REALLY need now. Gives me the creeps just to look at him.

The person that reviewed the FLIR data was Dr. Edward Allard (sp?) a former supervising scientist in video and television imagery at the U.S. Government's Night Vision Directorate.
And you can clearly see the people in this video. In one spot, you can easily see them laying down from behind a tank shooting into the compound.
A scientific test was done to see if it could have been light reflections off the ground in front of the men's rifles, and unless the aircraft recording the data was doing MACH 1.8 in a tight circle, it is not possible that it was a reflection.
During the Senate hearings, the FLIR investigation was not carried forward, because they 'could not find a person to do it'. Well, this guy did it, and he said,"It was the sickest thing he has ever had to watch." (Or about that....not verbatim).

Devil's Advocate

16th July 2007, 02:55 AM

I'm not convinced. I would have to look further into it than just a movie.

*Gives the universal 'OK' sign*

I'm not denying evidence, I'm not satisfied with the way it's presented in a sensationalistic movie.
It is a documentary, not a movie.

I'm not conviced of the "evidence" presented in the movie that it was the FBI who set the fire. The evidence is not convincing, since the Waco nutjobs did pour fuel in the first place it's more likely that they themselves ignited it.
Speculation. What is evidence, however, is that there were military incendiary devices found in the buildings at, and only at, the three places where the fires initiated. Highly flammable CS fumes plus incendiary device = fire.
And in the tape, David tells someone to poor the liquid outside the building, you know, the 'wall of fire for protection' like the prophecy they believed was coming?

Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense.
Have you ever been in a combat situation? Have you ever been shot at? You ever lost a friend? How about four friends within 20 minutes? Think about being in it even if you have not. Four friends are killed by 'religious nutjobs'. Would you want to rush the building? A little payback? Elite military units do not come onto a scene to play patty cake. Delta is not an advisory unit. They are a Counter Terrorism unit.

The two can be synonymous sometimes.
That is your opinion. People use religion as an excuse. I know Muslim people, and none of them believe in killing anyone. People warp whatever they can to get what they want, and to try to justify it to themselves. Religion is no different.

stilicho

16th July 2007, 09:39 PM

It was a bunch of idiots that shouldn't have been let lose with a paper bag sending in inadequently trained peudomilitaries to do things that a good negotionator and telephone could have done in an hour.
I am glad you said something like this.

I've worked both within and without bureaucracies in my career, and have noticed that bureaucratic institutions couldn't even have the imagination to create 9/11 or to shoot JFK, let alone the appropriate deployable personnel. (Those last three words are typical "bureaucratese"; most of us would call them "men".)

When encountered by unusual circumstances such as those at Waco, bureaucratic responses are generally inappropriate to the situation.

Nevertheless, Waco and Ruby Ridge, along with JFK and 9/11, are idealised by conspiracists as though there was something intentional on the part of authorities and their "handlers". Not so with the Vyg Community retributions or even something as recent as Olof Palme's assassination.

I have a large array of examples that, for the sake of consistency, ought to have well-developed conspiracies accompanying them. Alaska Airlines Flight 261 doesn't have a conspiracy attached to it. TWA Flight 800 does. I wonder why the conspiracists are so discriminatory about what warrants disbelief in the MSM and what doesn't. Shouldn't every strange event deserve a conspiracy? And wouldn't the world make a lot more sense (to them, anyhow)?

stilicho

16th July 2007, 09:51 PM

Incidentally, PW, here's exhibit "A" above, "Devil's Advocate", cherishing every sentence of the Waco debacle and trying to make sense of it only as a conspiracy. I wonder what his opinion is of Grand Forks Flood and Fires of 1997? Look at this: http://www.atkinson.yorku.ca/~crhnet/casestudies/redriver/who_decides.pdf

Isn't there almost a clearer indication there that the US Federal Government deliberately flooded and gutted Grand Forks than obscure and edited quotations about Waco? And yet I still await a conspiracist who even remembers the Red River flood. (PS, conspiracists, the US Federal Government operates the upstream dams).

Pardalis

16th July 2007, 10:05 PM

It is a documentary, not a movie.

Documentaries are movies.

Speculation. What is evidence, however, is that there were military incendiary devices found in the buildings at, and only at, the three places where the fires initiated. Highly flammable CS fumes plus incendiary device = fire.

The Davidians poured fuel, that's a fact. How was the FBI supposed to know about that?

And in the tape, David tells someone to poor the liquid outside the building, you know, the 'wall of fire for protection' like the prophecy they believed was coming?

Again, how is the FBI supposed to interpret their idiotic prophecies on the spot?

A little payback?

I don't know.

That is your opinion. People use religion as an excuse. I know Muslim people, and none of them believe in killing anyone. People warp whatever they can to get what they want, and to try to justify it to themselves. Religion is no different.

I don't think religion is an excuse. Fanatics like AQ and the Davidians are true believers who push their faiths to the limit. I'm not against religion, but sometimes it can be a mental sickness which can lead to these extremes.

PhantomWolf

16th July 2007, 11:06 PM

Have you ever been in a combat situation? Have you ever been shot at? You ever lost a friend? How about four friends within 20 minutes? Think about being in it even if you have not. Four friends are killed by 'religious nutjobs'. Would you want to rush the building? A little payback? Elite military units do not come onto a scene to play patty cake. Delta is not an advisory unit. They are a Counter Terrorism unit.

There were no "Elite Military" units there. The only elite unit was an FBI counter terrorist unit. Secondly, the four officers shot were ATF, the final assault wasn't for another 51 days and was lead by the FBI, the ATF weren't involved. That's not exactly rushing the compound.

The FLIR data is contravertial. An International board of experts determined that the flashes weren't gunfire as they lasted too long and weren't in the right positions, others have said they think they were, however no independant evidence of them being gunfire has emerged, the one possible lead turn out to go nowhere and shell casings found were from the initial assult by the ATF in the first raid. Even the Davidians dropped this claim from their lawsuit because of the lack of evidence.

Charges that government agents fired shots into the complex on April 19, 1993, were based on Forward Looking Infrared (“FLIR”) video recorded by FBI Nightstalker aircraft. These tapes showed 57 flashes, with some occurring around government vehicles that were operating near the complex. The Office of Special Counsel conducted a field test of FLIR technology on March 19, 2000, to determine whether gunfire caused the flashes. The testing was conducted under a protocol agreed to and signed by attorneys and experts for the Davidians and their families, as well as for the government. Analysis of the shape, duration, and location of the flashes indicated that they resulted from a reflection off debris on or around the complex, rather than gunfire. Additionally, independent expert review of photography taken at the scene showed no people at or near the points from which the flashes emanated. Interviews of Davidians, government witnesses, filmmakers, writers, and advocates for the Davidians found that none had witnessed any government gunfire on April 19. Finally, none of the Davidians who died on that day displayed evidence of having been struck by a high velocity round, as would be expected had they been shot from outside of the complex by government sniper rifles or other assault weapons. In view of this evidence, the Special Counsel concluded that the claim that government gunfire occurred on April 19, 1993, amounted to “an unsupportable case based entirely upon flawed technological assumptions.”

20 Davidians did die of gunshot wounds, but those were in positions indicitive of execution or suicide, not what would have been expected from outside gunfire. One (a baby) had been stabbed to death.

The fire started simultaneously in three places, only one of which would have been accessable to the FBI from the outside using their gear. While they did cover up the use of grenades on a bunker (which was fill of water as it turned out and so there were no women and children in it) that was three hours before the fires started.

A jury found the survivors innocent of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, but charged them with use of fire arms.
The federal judge could set the sentence, and sentenced them to multiple life sentences for murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

No, the jury convicted five of them on Voluntary Manslaughter.

Kevin A. Whitecliff—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.
Jaime Castillo—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.
Renos Lenny Avraam—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.
Brad Eugene Branch—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.
Livingstone Fagan—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.

Devil's Advocate

16th July 2007, 11:30 PM

Devil's Advocate

17th July 2007, 12:05 AM

There were no "Elite Military" units there. The only elite unit was an FBI counter terrorist unit. Secondly, the four officers shot were ATF, the final assault wasn't for another 51 days and was lead by the FBI, the ATF weren't involved. That's not exactly rushing the compound.

1st Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta (C.A.G Combat Applications Group) was there, and the F.B.I admitted it.
They admitted to two members there, FBI witnesses said there were over ten there. That is the numbers needed for a large building 'assault entry stack'.

The FLIR data is contravertial. An International board of experts determined that the flashes weren't gunfire as they lasted too long and weren't in the right positions, others have said they think they were, however no independant evidence of them being gunfire has emerged, the one possible lead turn out to go nowhere and shell casings found were from the initial assult by the ATF in the first raid. Even the Davidians dropped this claim from their lawsuit because of the lack of evidence.

I find it funny that the highest volume of fire was directed at the place where 14 died of gunshot wounds. You call something a suicide so it is not a 'crime scene' any longer....so you can 'clean' the area. Which is exactly what they did.
I do not know the credentials of the 'international board', but the guy in the video was an expert working within the government, in the government's night vision programs. And he said it was impossible to be anything but gunfire. (He is a scientist)

20 Davidians did die of gunshot wounds, but those were in positions indicitive of execution or suicide, not what would have been expected from outside gunfire. One (a baby) had been stabbed to death.
How how could you say it was indicative of suicide? They had the bodies in trailers to be examined, but the trailers cooling system ran on electricity which was conveniently forgotten to be supplied. Who's evidence are you relying on in that regard?

The fire started simultaneously in three places, only one of which would have been accessable to the FBI from the outside using their gear. While they did cover up the use of grenades on a bunker (which was fill of water as it turned out and so there were no women and children in it) that was three hours before the fires started.

The places the fires started was the only places military incendiaries were found. CS is highly flammable and it was pumped in the building for how long?
Of course they will lie and say there were no people in the bunker. That is where most of the children were. It's hard to keep people on your side when you pump CS gas into a room full of children for four straight hours and then use a shape charge to blow them apart. They told a lot of lies, but the pictures speak a thousand words, and proved the government lied again.
There is video of the charge going off, there is a picture of the roof of the bunker proving a charge went off there and that it came from the top down, and pictures of the aftermath. (graphic)

No, the jury convicted five of them on Voluntary Manslaughter.
Kevin A. Whitecliff—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.
Jaime Castillo—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.
Renos Lenny Avraam—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.
Brad Eugene Branch—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.
Livingstone Fagan—convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime.

Which went against what the jury decided.
A juror talks about what they decided, and they did not know the judge could do what he did based on the sole fact that they left the gun charge on.
The jury did not find them guilty of murder or manslaughter according a juror in the documentary. She explains it clearly.

Waco was a government operations that got FUBAR, and then they lied, destroyed evidence, lied about evidence, mishandled evidence, etc, etc, etc.
They were trying to cover their butts, and broke many laws in the process.
A lot of this documentary shows parts from the Senate hearings on Waco.

(My last reply was unfair, so I did this one.)

Devil's Advocate

17th July 2007, 12:24 AM

Documentaries are movies.
Play with words all you like. But you choose to ignore facts because of the presentation format....

The Davidians poured fuel, that's a fact. How was the FBI supposed to know about that?
One guy....ONE guy started to poured a 'liquid' on the floor and was told to stop by David. (It's on tape)
I'll state again...CS gas is highly flammable. The government pumped days worth of CS into the building. Incendiaries start fires.
The points of origin for all three fires were the only places inside the building that military incendiaries were found. CS canisters from M203's and Flash Bang grenades.

Again, how is the FBI supposed to interpret their idiotic prophecies on the spot?
FBI said the Delta team had placed listening devices inside. They knew exactly what they were doing inside.

I don't know.
OK. Great answer. Some may see it as a copout. But it is the only honest person can give. No one knows how they will react to a combat situation until they are in one.

I don't think religion is an excuse. Fanatics like AQ and the Davidians are true believers who push their faiths to the limit. I'm not against religion, but sometimes it can be a mental sickness which can lead to these extremes.
Explain how they 'pushed their religion to the limit? David is heard talking to someone in the building, coming down on someone about two of them wanting to take the battle to the agents outside.
David asked,"Who do they think they are? They cannot stop them. This is God's will if it happens." (Not verbatim)
He was against an attack.
They were defending themselves.
A.T.F fired the first shots.
The video of the assault would have proven it, but the government agents 'lost' ALL THREE videos of the front door beginning phase.
And parts were 'torn out' of the tapes too.
A senator asked how that could happen....the FBI guy said,"I...I do not know how that would happen."
How much BS can you handle? Because you have to handle a lot to side with the government in this case.

Do I hate the government and think they are all evil? No.
But they broke a lot of laws and killed a lot of people when they did not have to. Someone needs to pay for that.

Another bombshell. One of the three sniper teams said they never fired a shot. But there were four empty shell cases on the floor. (Pictured in the video)
More lies.

PhantomWolf

17th July 2007, 09:48 PM

1st Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta (C.A.G Combat Applications Group) was there, and the F.B.I admitted it.
They admitted to two members there, FBI witnesses said there were over ten there. That is the numbers needed for a large building 'assault entry stack'.

I'd love to see a source for the FBI admitting this, all I can find is CT sites most of whom quote anonymous sources, that frankly when you get to tge bottom of clearly know very little about the unit despite claiming to be part of it.

I find it funny that the highest volume of fire was directed at the place where 14 died of gunshot wounds. You call something a suicide so it is not a 'crime scene' any longer....so you can 'clean' the area. Which is exactly what they did.

Most of the vitims died from small calibre shots to the forehead, temple, boack of the head, or a shot to the chest/heart.

Hallway (room next to the kitchen)
7 - Steve Schneider - gunshot wound, mouth
8 - David Koresh - gunshot wound, mid-forehead

Kitchen
20 - Jimmy Riddle - gunshot wound, mid-forehead
21 - Steven Henry - gunshot wounds
22 - Phillip Henry - multiple gunshot wounds, head and upper torso

Inside Pantry (room next to the kitchen)
31A - Aisha Summers - gunshot wound to the left chest
31D-E - parts of human skull, 11-14 yrs., gunshot wound to left skull
43 - Lisa Ferris - gunshot wound to the left head
44 - John Doe - gunshot wound to the left chest
45 - Mary Jean Borst - gunshot wound of the back
47 - Jane Doe - gunshot wound to the head
53 - Jane Doe 5-5.5 yrs. - gunshot wound to the left chest
66 - Jane Doe - gunshot wounds to the left back and thorax
67-B - infant - gunshot wound to the head

Pantry Roof
34 - Sonobe - gunshot wound of the head
35 - Shari Doyle - gunshot wound left posterior head
36 - David M. Jones - gunshot wound of the head
39 - Novellette Hipsman - gunshot wounds of the head and chest
41 - Neil Vaega - gunshot wound to the head

Now I know that Delta force is supposed to be good, but shooting someone hiding in a panty in the back of the head execution style from outside the building, man that really takes talent.

I do not know the credentials of the 'international board', but the guy in the video was an expert working within the government, in the government's night vision programs. And he said it was impossible to be anything but gunfire. (He is a scientist)

Yes well Dr Steven Jones claims that the WTC buildings couldn't have come down using anything but therm*te.

During the Davidians lawsuit against the Government they initially files claims of the Government agents having fired on the compound. THEY withdrew the claim because they didn't have any evidence for it. None. They had their own experts look at the FLIR tape, and then help set up an experiment under very strictly controlled conditions so they could verify if what was in the tape was really ginfire. They came to the conclusion it wasn't. The Davidian's own experts claim it's not. Add to that that none of the survivors heard gunfire from outside, there were NO shell casings found other than those from the intial ATF raid, and none of the dead had bullet wounds from the high power assult rifles that the FBI carried, but rather small calibre weapons like those found inside the compound. The only evidence you have is the FLIR, and even the Davidians own experts say that it isn't gunfire. Your entire argument is that "it looks like gunfire so it must be." Well the 9/11's entire arugment about 9/11 is that "it looks like a CD so it must be" and the Apollo nutters claims are that "The astronauts like like they are on wires so they must be." See the pattern?

The places the fires started was the only places military incendiaries were found.

No, two of the fires started deep inside the building, the only four grenades found from the final assault were in the bunker and had been fired hours eariler.

CS is highly flammable and it was pumped in the building for how long?

That's interesting, someone in one of the other threads was noting that it's a combustion by-product so isn't highly flamable and that it the times he's been hit with it it had put fires in the area out.

Which went against what the jury decided.
A juror talks about what they decided, and they did not know the judge could do what he did based on the sole fact that they left the gun charge on.
The jury did not find them guilty of murder or manslaughter according a juror in the documentary. She explains it clearly.

And yet even anti government sites claim the Jury decided the manslaughter verdict and the Judge actually overode some of their guilty verdicts, not the other way around.

After only 18 hours of deliberations (including the several hours necessary to study the judge's charge to the jury), following a six-week trial, the jury came back with "not guilty" verdicts for all 11 defendants on the murder and conspiracy to murder charges, convictions of five defendants for voluntary manslaughter, a few convictions for using firearms in the commission of a violent crime (which convictions were dismissed by the judge because those defendants had not been found guilty of any violent crimes) and seven weapons possession convictions.

Another bombshell. One of the three sniper teams said they never fired a shot. But there were four empty shell cases on the floor. (Pictured in the video)
More lies.

Which were found to have been fired during the first ATF raid 51 days previously. This was discovered due to them being the wrong calibre and having oxidised.

Devil's Advocate

18th July 2007, 08:46 PM

I'd love to see a source for the FBI admitting this, all I can find is CT sites most of whom quote anonymous sources, that frankly when you get to tge bottom of clearly know very little about the unit despite claiming to be part of it.

If you would watch the video, you would see the FBI directer admit it in a press conference. And I know a lot about the unit. Though I do not claim to be a part of it.

Most of the vitims died from small calibre shots to the forehead, temple, boack of the head, or a shot to the chest/heart.

Hallway (room next to the kitchen)
7 - Steve Schneider - gunshot wound, mouth
8 - David Koresh - gunshot wound, mid-forehead

Kitchen
20 - Jimmy Riddle - gunshot wound, mid-forehead
21 - Steven Henry - gunshot wounds
22 - Phillip Henry - multiple gunshot wounds, head and upper torso

Inside Pantry (room next to the kitchen)
31A - Aisha Summers - gunshot wound to the left chest
31D-E - parts of human skull, 11-14 yrs., gunshot wound to left skull
43 - Lisa Ferris - gunshot wound to the left head
44 - John Doe - gunshot wound to the left chest
45 - Mary Jean Borst - gunshot wound of the back
47 - Jane Doe - gunshot wound to the head
53 - Jane Doe 5-5.5 yrs. - gunshot wound to the left chest
66 - Jane Doe - gunshot wounds to the left back and thorax
67-B - infant - gunshot wound to the head

Pantry Roof
34 - Sonobe - gunshot wound of the head
35 - Shari Doyle - gunshot wound left posterior head
36 - David M. Jones - gunshot wound of the head
39 - Novellette Hipsman - gunshot wounds of the head and chest
41 - Neil Vaega - gunshot wound to the head

Now I know that Delta force is supposed to be good, but shooting someone hiding in a panty in the back of the head execution style from outside the building, man that really takes talent.

Says whom? Let's see, the agents lie and 'somehow' bring and 'accidently' fire weapons they are not supposed to, then lie about doing it, evidence proves they did it, and I'm supposed to trust what they say happened?
What is the typical weapon used by Delta in CQB?
The H&K MP5. The MP5SD is used mainly by CT/HR/CI and some SWAT teams.
http://www.remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/mp5sd/mp5sd.htm
(The long part on the front is a silencer)

Yes well Dr Steven Jones claims that the WTC buildings couldn't have come down using anything but therm*te.
We're not talking about 9/11 or theories.

During the Davidians lawsuit against the Government they initially files claims of the Government agents having fired on the compound. THEY withdrew the claim because they didn't have any evidence for it. None. They had their own experts look at the FLIR tape, and then help set up an experiment under very strictly controlled conditions so they could verify if what was in the tape was really ginfire. They came to the conclusion it wasn't. The Davidian's own experts claim it's not. Add to that that none of the survivors heard gunfire from outside, there were NO shell casings found other than those from the intial ATF raid, and none of the dead had bullet wounds from the high power assult rifles that the FBI carried, but rather small calibre weapons like those found inside the compound. The only evidence you have is the FLIR, and even the Davidians own experts say that it isn't gunfire. Your entire argument is that "it looks like gunfire so it must be." Well the 9/11's entire arugment about 9/11 is that "it looks like a CD so it must be" and the Apollo nutters claims are that "The astronauts like like they are on wires so they must be." See the pattern?

No I do not see a pattern, because I do not know their expert was. What I do know is the credentials of the expert in night vision and video analysis that said it was gun fire, and the scientific data that proved it would not have been reflections. When did this expert come forward? After the hearings. A bit too late to help in it.

No, two of the fires started deep inside the building, the only four grenades found from the final assault were in the bunker and had been fired hours eariler.

It was three fires. And that is where the devices were found. Tanks made huge holes into the building at numerous places. They imply that the building was closed up tight? lol. And how can you or anyone else determine when it was fired? The early use of CS was shown once, and they were fired outside the building, not into it (The 'bunker' was outside the main building.The people that were shooting into the building were in the back the building, big surprise.

That's interesting, someone in one of the other threads was noting that it's a combustion by-product so isn't highly flamable and that it the times he's been hit with it it had put fires in the area out.
Did the area's that he was noting contain extreme volumes of highly flammable vapor and area saturation? And flash bangs cause fires on thin carpets. Ask anyone familiar with CQB if they want to discharge an M203 or flashbang in a room that has CS vapor and material saturation.

And yet even anti government sites claim the Jury decided the manslaughter verdict and the Judge actually overode some of their guilty verdicts, not the other way around.
I will admit I did not look into the trial verdict information. I took a juror at her word.

Which were found to have been fired during the first ATF raid 51 days previously. This was discovered due to them being the wrong calibre and having oxidised.
They said they never fired a shot. So they lied at first. I do not know if they changed their story after the fact. And that sniper team was the same team from Ruby Ridge. I heard the sniper team leader was charge with something from that, but never was punished. I'm not sure if it's true or not.

Did the ATF fire first? Yes.
Did they all lie about weapons used? Yes.
Did they mishandle evidence? Yes.
Did they destroy evidence? Obviously. (Unless you buy the BS about the three front door tapes disappearing, and the front door missing, and the top of the bunker missing, and the bodies being put in a trailer that was not supplied to electricity to keep them from decomposition for investigation, etc, as honest mistakes.

Why would all those FBI, Texas Rangers, a CIA special Operations operator, and Rescue workers lie? I cannot see how, in the face of the fact there were lies, people can still trust the people that criminally f**ked that operation up can be trusted to investigate it and implicate themselves. They covered this butts. Plain and simple. The only conspiracy is that cover up.

Just remember what the sheriff of the town said the ATF told him....that should tell you all you need to know.
They contacted him about David. He said that David came into town every week, and he or they could easily pick him up. When David was contacted, he told them he would meet them whenever, where ever.
The sheriff told the ATF that, and they said, "No. We have other plans."
The whole thing did not have to happen. The siege was political, not necessary. Just watch and see what all those people say. This is not a video of people making claims. This is federal agents, police, and rescue workers through the whole thing.

PhantomWolf

18th July 2007, 11:04 PM

If you would watch the video

I'm at work, and at home I don't have broadband, so I only watcgh short clips, not 40 min long videos. Why can't you find a reference that isn't in a video?

Says whom?

The list of victims I supplied was from a CONSPIRACY site.

We're not talking about 9/11 or theories.

No we're not but you are trying to argue from authority, I was pointing out that this is a fallacy as "authority" is not always right. To argue from Authority legitimately, you need to show that you have the qualification to do so, and show that your argument is accepts as coorect by other in the field. The fact is that the plantiffs lawyers in the case against the government dropped the claims you are making because after experiments were done, their experts had to agree that the flashes were not gunfire. I want to make this point very clear. The experts that the Davidians hired to prove that these flashes were gunshots determined they weren't. The people that have the most to gain from them being gunshots don't believe they were and dropped it from their lawsuit. We're not having to rely on what the Government says here, the ones most affected by any covert attempts to kill them say it didn't happen. Why then should someone who wasn't there and who hasn't done the experiments to determine what the flashes are be accepted over those that were, have everything to gain from them being gunshots, have done experiments and determined they weren't.

No I do not see a pattern, because I do not know their expert was. What I do know is the credentials of the expert in night vision and video analysis that said it was gun fire, and the scientific data that proved it would not have been reflections. When did this expert come forward? After the hearings. A bit too late to help in it.

And the 9/11 CT's have experts who have said that WTC 7 looked like a Controlled Demolision. This is the point, you have an expert who says it looks like gunfire, and that's it. Other experts have said that it isn't. You claim that it was scientifically proved that they weren't reflections, but the Government experts and the Davidian experts recreated the footage using strict critera to make sure that there wasn't any cheating and determined that they weren't gunfire. This is what I'm trying to get through to you. The Davidians own experts who they contracted to form their side of their case in the suit against the Government determined that there was no gunfire and that what is seen on the FLIR is not gunfire. They even helped recreate the scene to determine if it was gunfire. What part of this don't you understand?

Did the area's that he was noting contain extreme volumes of highly flammable vapor and area saturation?

Well you could find them yourself, they are in the other thread on the OK Bombing and Waco. One of the situations he gives was being in a tent with a gas cooker lit when someone threw in a canister of CS. You have yet to show that CS is highly flamable. Since it is created as a combusion product I'm not so sure that it is. Some of the propellents and such in the grenades likely are, but CS itself... Even the solvent that was used isn't exactly flamable. That was Dichloromethane, and while it can cause cancer in extremely large doses, it is rated as low flamability risk. As such I don't see anything that indicates that the CS used at Waco was highly Flamable. In fact exactly the opposite.

I will admit I did not look into the trial verdict information. I took a juror at her word.

Perhaps there are more things in your video that you shouldn't be taking at face value. While I haven't seen it, I suspect that she was actually saying about the Judge overturning their decisions about the violent crimes, but had a little creative editting done.

They said they never fired a shot. So they lied at first.

The FBI snipers didn't fire. The shells were from 51 days eariler when the ATF did, and there is no doubt about that, 10 people got killed during that fire fight, no one siad the ATF didn't fire then. However they didn't fire during the final assualt.

Did the ATF fire first? Yes.

Disputed. Both sides claim the other side fired first. There is no evidence to say which side actually did.

Did they all lie about weapons used? Yes.

Which weapons? They did lie about using gas grenades on the bunker, yes. They were mistaken about what guns the Davidians had, but otherwise there aren't any lies that stand out.

Did they mishandle evidence? Yes.

Not evidence of a conspiracy as incompetence is also a likely cause.

Did they destroy evidence? Obviously. (Unless you buy the BS about the three front door tapes disappearing, and the front door missing, and the top of the bunker missing, and the bodies being put in a trailer that was not supplied to electricity to keep them from decomposition for investigation, etc, as honest mistakes.

Have you actually got any evidence that they weren't? You have to remember that this has been through a criminal court trial, several investigations and a civil trial where these things have been availible, and the Davidians aren't championing this cause at all. Why would the victims of such a conspiracy accept the government stories if it was all lies?

Why would all those FBI, Texas Rangers, a CIA special Operations operator, and Rescue workers lie?

That's a very good question. Have you considered that a number of the things you think they are lying about aren't actually lies and it's you that has it wrong?

Just remember what the sheriff of the town said the ATF told him....that should tell you all you need to know.
They contacted him about David. He said that David came into town every week, and he or they could easily pick him up. When David was contacted, he told them he would meet them whenever, where ever.
The sheriff told the ATF that, and they said, "No. We have other plans."

And what would picking up David achieve? They wanted to get into the compound and see what was happening in there. Arresting David outside of the compound would have been a total waste of time. You seem to assume that the entire thing was just to arrest him, it wasn't. They were going in to check out the kids and they used "weapons violations" as a way to get the warrents.

The whole thing did not have to happen.

About the only thing I agree with, it was very poorly handled, on both sides. The authorities didn't understand the mindset of the Davidians and everything they did, though standard hostage tactics, played right into the fantasy of the Davidians of an apocolytic ending. At the same time the Davidians didn't help themselves. They didn't have to arm up against the ATF in the first place, they could have surrendered numerous times, including when David said they were going to 5 days into the seige. Instead they locked themselves away and determined to face the end of the world.

The siege was political

No, it was a great example of what happened when Religious extremism comes head to head with Breurocratic incompetence and intractablity.

Just watch and see what all those people say.

How about you stop watching videos and go and do some ereal research. As Mulder says, The truth is out there. The trick is getting out and finding it rather then expecting someone to package it and drop it on your lap.

Devil's Advocate

19th July 2007, 01:55 PM

I'm at work, and at home I don't have broadband, so I only watcgh short clips, not 40 min long videos. Why can't you find a reference that isn't in a video?
How did what was provided come out to begin with? Whistle blowers. It's hard to collect evidence when the ones handling it are lying about it and getting rid of it. Watch the evidence presented before you question it's accuracy.

No we're not but you are trying to argue from authority, I was pointing out that this is a fallacy as "authority" is not always right. To argue from Authority legitimately, you need to show that you have the qualification to do so, and show that your argument is accepts as coorect by other in the field. The fact is that the plantiffs lawyers in the case against the government dropped the claims you are making because after experiments were done, their experts had to agree that the flashes were not gunfire. I want to make this point very clear. The experts that the Davidians hired to prove that these flashes were gunshots determined they weren't. The people that have the most to gain from them being gunshots don't believe they were and dropped it from their lawsuit. We're not having to rely on what the Government says here, the ones most affected by any covert attempts to kill them say it didn't happen. Why then should someone who wasn't there and who hasn't done the experiments to determine what the flashes are be accepted over those that were, have everything to gain from them being gunshots, have done experiments and determined they weren't.
Another expert after the trial said it was. Pointless.

Well you could find them yourself, they are in the other thread on the OK Bombing and Waco. One of the situations he gives was being in a tent with a gas cooker lit when someone threw in a canister of CS. You have yet to show that CS is highly flamable. Since it is created as a combusion product I'm not so sure that it is. Some of the propellents and such in the grenades likely are, but CS itself... Even the solvent that was used isn't exactly flamable. That was Dichloromethane, and while it can cause cancer in extremely large doses, it is rated as low flamability risk. As such I don't see anything that indicates that the CS used at Waco was highly Flamable. In fact exactly the opposite.
http://www.hardylaw.net/larsen.html

Perhaps there are more things in your video that you shouldn't be taking at face value. While I haven't seen it, I suspect that she was actually saying about the Judge overturning their decisions about the violent crimes, but had a little creative editting done. Does that sound OK to you? The jury makes a decision, and the judge disregards it.

And the 9/11 CT's have experts who have said that WTC 7 looked like a Controlled Demolision. This is the point, you have an expert who says it looks like gunfire, and that's it. Other experts have said that it isn't. You claim that it was scientifically proved that they weren't reflections, but the Government experts and the Davidian experts recreated the footage using strict critera to make sure that there wasn't any cheating and determined that they weren't gunfire. This is what I'm trying to get through to you. The Davidians own experts who they contracted to form their side of their case in the suit against the Government determined that there was no gunfire and that what is seen on the FLIR is not gunfire. They even helped recreate the scene to determine if it was gunfire. What part of this don't you understand? One more time I guess.
The night vision expert stated that it could have been nothing but gunfire after the trial was long over. What part of that don't you understand?

The FBI snipers didn't fire. The shells were from 51 days eariler when the ATF did, and there is no doubt about that, 10 people got killed during that fire fight, no one siad the ATF didn't fire then. However they didn't fire during the final assualt.
The AFT built the sniper positions? I thought the FBI said they did? It was an F.B.I. sniper team there. "The agents are being honest at this point, I swear...."

Disputed. Both sides claim the other side fired first. There is no evidence to say which side actually did.
lol...yeah OK. No evidence because the Government 'lost' the three front door tapes and the front door itself.

Which weapons? They did lie about using gas grenades on the bunker, yes. They were mistaken about what guns the Davidians had, but otherwise there aren't any lies that stand out.
The use of Delta there. They deny it, then admit it. It is against the Constitution to use Military units in civilian policing matters. The use of incendiaries inside the compound, etc.
What did the FBI director say? He willing tortured children in hopes that 'It would make the parents see the children 'in distress' and they would come out.
So, it's OK to knowingly put kids lives at risk and cause them severe pain if it suits your purposes? Let that sink in a minute for the type of mentality you're defending. I guess listing flash bang grenade canisters as weapon silencers is an honest mistake too, eh? Either that or it was an attempt to hide the use of them.

Not evidence of a conspiracy as incompetence is also a likely cause.
Lying and trying to cover it up (destruction and manipulation of evidence) is not a conspiracy? Oh, you want to believe it was just incompetence.

That's a very good question. Have you considered that a number of the things you think they are lying about aren't actually lies and it's you that has it wrong?
"We did not use incendiaries." "We did not use explosives on the bunker." "We did not use Delta....no wait, yes, but only sorta." "We did not fire first, we would prove it but we lost all three tapes and the door is missing so we cannot prove it." Etc.

And what would picking up David achieve? They wanted to get into the compound and see what was happening in there. Arresting David outside of the compound would have been a total waste of time. You seem to assume that the entire thing was just to arrest him, it wasn't. They were going in to check out the kids and they used "weapons violations" as a way to get the warrents.
David told the sheriff, and the sheriff confirmed that David said he would meet them anywhere. If they had met him, they could have taken him to the compound and saw what they needed to see without a fight.
And they were wrong about the weapons the government thought they had you said?

About the only thing I agree with, it was very poorly handled, on both sides. The authorities didn't understand the mindset of the Davidians and everything they did, though standard hostage tactics, played right into the fantasy of the Davidians of an apocolytic ending. At the same time the Davidians didn't help themselves. They didn't have to arm up against the ATF in the first place, they could have surrendered numerous times, including when David said they were going to 5 days into the seige. Instead they locked themselves away and determined to face the end of the world.
Wrong....David was going to out after he had written the 'Seals' he was talking about. He was then 'commanded by God' to leave the building after.
All they had to do was wait....but they didn't want to.
And the Davidian's were told by the FBI negotiator to NOT come out for a while or they would be forced back inside. Why is that?

How about you stop watching videos and go and do some ereal research. As Mulder says, The truth is out there. The trick is getting out and finding it rather then expecting someone to package it and drop it on your lap.
Typical. Or, I could be like you and trust the 'evidence' of people that were lying, proven to be lying, and expect them to all of a sudden come clean and have go to prison. Yeah, yours is the logical choice....
They did not 'make a mistake' about what they said, they lied.

A short clip for your pleasure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oxgmcLPOVA

PhantomWolf

19th July 2007, 08:15 PM

Special Counsel Report on Waco (http://www.courttv.com/national/davidians/Waco_Rpt.pdf)

Another expert after the trial said it was. Pointless.

The special Consel report was done in 2000, partially in respose to your "experts"

Quote from the report linked above:

(a) FLIR Testing and Analysis. Virtually the only evidence cited by those claiming government agents fired shots into the complex on April 19, 1993, are the FLIR videos recorded by the FBI Nightstalker aircraft from approximately 10:42 a.m. to 12:41 p.m. on that day. In fact, however, this evidence strongly supports the conclusion that no employee of the United States fired a shot on April 19.
The FLIR tapes show 57 flashes, emanating principally from alleged Davidian positions inside or on top of the complex. Eighteen of the flashes occur on the back side of the complex, with some occurring around government vehicles that were operating near the complex. During the past three years, representatives of the Davidians and several independent experts retained by the media and Congress have concluded that gunfire could have caused or did cause these flashes. The FBI and its experts have claimed that the flashes are reflections or “glint” coming from debris scattered in and around the complex.
The Office of Special Counsel retained two teams of experts to analyze the FLIR tapes from April 19. Working with the United States District Court judge in the civil litigation brought by some of the Davidians and their families against the United States government, the Office of Special Counsel and its expert, Vector Data Systems (U.K.) Ltd., conducted a field test of FLIR technology at Fort Hood, Texas on March 19, 2000. The purpose of the test was to identify the thermal signature, if any, that gunfire and debris would leave on a FLIR recording. The Office of Special Counsel conducted the test under a protocol agreed to and signed by both the attorneys and experts for the government and the attorneys and experts for the Davidians and their families. The protocol identified the FLIR equipment, the weapons, and the other conditions that would best approximate the scene at Waco in 1993.
Based on a detailed analysis of the shape, duration and location of 57 flashes noted on the 1993 FLIR tapes, and a comparison of those flashes with flashes recorded on the March 2000 FLIR test tape, the expert retained by the Office of Special Counsel concluded with certainty that each of the flashes noted on the 1993 tapes resulted from a reflection off debris on or around the complex.
These conclusions are supported by color photographs which show the reflective debris at the exact location of many of the flashes noted on the 1993 tapes. Lena Klasèn, a second independent expert retained by the Office of Special Counsel also concluded that thermal activity caused by human movement or motion did not exist near or around the area of the flashes noted on the FLIR tapes.
Moreover, she concluded that photographs show no people at the points from which the flashes emanated. After performing a relational analysis of the Nightstalker’s movement and sensor position, Klasèn, like Vector, has concluded that the flashes on the 1993 tapes were from debris. The FLIR test and the expert analyses prove conclusively that the FLIR tapes do not evidence gunfire directed at the Davidians from government positions.

Your expert says it looks like gunfire. The Speical Counsel's experts ran experiments and looked at non-FLIR footage to determine what was there and if gunfire really looked like the flashes. Their conclusion is that a) There weren't people near the flashes, and b) gunfire doesn't look like the flashes. What experiments did your expert do, or did he just look at the footage and say it looks like gunfire?

Does that sound OK to you? The jury makes a decision, and the judge disregards it.

Yes it does sound fair to me. The Judge decided that the Jury was wrong on a point of law and that since they had determined that there was no violent crime, then under the law they could not find guilty on use of a firearm during a violent crime. Since the Jury was incorrect on the interpretation of the law he was correct to over-rule them. Are you suggesting that Judges should ignore it when Juries get the law wrong and in doing so find someone guilty of something they can't be under the correct interpretation of the law?

One more time I guess.
The night vision expert stated that it could have been nothing but gunfire after the trial was long over. What part of that don't you understand?

And one more time, the experts that came to the conclusion your expert is wrong did more than just watch the FLIR video and claim it, they went out and tested gunfire, reflections and people moving about to see if it looked the same as the FLIR showed, and compared the FLIR to normal colour pictures and video to see what was there. Their conclusions based on far more evidence than "it looks like" was that your expert is wrong.

The AFT built the sniper positions? I thought the FBI said they did? It was an F.B.I. sniper team there. "The agents are being honest at this point, I swear...."

The ATF set up sharpshooter positions and had helicopters with sharpshooters in them on the first raid. The Davidian's ballistics experts were given the shells which were .308 cartriages. They confirmed that the shells were from the ATF raid on February 28, not from the FBI assault on April 19.

The use of Delta there. They deny it, then admit it.

You still haven't provided any evidence of this apart from "see the video." All I can find is that they had people trained by them and used military equipment that had been borrowed. I repeat again. please provide cooberating evidence of this claim, i.e. something other than "watch the video."

David told the sheriff, and the sheriff confirmed that David said he would meet them anywhere. If they had met him, they could have taken him to the compound and saw what they needed to see without a fight.

If he was so willing to allow them access anytime, why when he got advance notice of them coming did he and his people arm up to stop them? The only reason there was a fight was because the Davidian armed themselves when they indavertantly learned that the ATF were coming.

And they were wrong about the weapons the government thought they had you said?

The ATF claimed that the Davidians had machine guns, which are illegal even in the US. While they may have had semi-automatics that had been made fully automatioc, they didn't have the .50 caliber machine guns the ATF believed they did.

Wrong....David was going to out after he had written the 'Seals' he was talking about. He was then 'commanded by God' to leave the building after.
All they had to do was wait....but they didn't want to.

Five days into the seige David claimed that if they played a sermon of his on radio they'd surrender, the broadcast happened, David changed his timing to when he'd finished his scrolls, and kept delaying the timing. The FBI did wait, they waited 51 days before acting. How long do you think they should have waited? 2 months? 6 months? a year? 2 years? Until they had a Heaven's Gate or Jones Town?

And the Davidian's were told by the FBI negotiator to NOT come out for a while or they would be forced back inside.

Do you have a reference for that other than "Watch the video"?

Typical. Or, I could be like you and trust the 'evidence' of people that were lying, proven to be lying, and expect them to all of a sudden come clean and have go to prison. Yeah, yours is the logical choice....

So your view of reseach is to find a video on YouTube that says what you want it too and then ignore everything that contradicts it. Very open minded of you there. You are fast going from Devil's Advocate to full blowen Conspiracist.

A short clip for your pleasure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oxgmcLPOVA

It's not fire. Flames are lighter than air, they go upwards, the substance in that footage is denser than air and is sinking as it rolls off the CEV. It's likely CS spray (which is denser than air) and the colour is due to the poor footage.

Read the report I linked at the top of this post, it is 173 pages in length. Pages 10-13 deal with the fires, where they started and how, including testimony from the surviving Davidians that they (the Davidians) started the fires.

Devil's Advocate

19th July 2007, 11:08 PM

The special Consel report was done in 2000, partially in respose to your "experts"
Quote from the report linked above:
Your expert says it looks like gunfire. The Speical Counsel's experts ran experiments and looked at non-FLIR footage to determine what was there and if gunfire really looked like the flashes. Their conclusion is that a) There weren't people near the flashes, and b) gunfire doesn't look like the flashes. What experiments did your expert do, or did he just look at the footage and say it looks like gunfire?
As stated before, I do not know the credentials of the 'expert's you noted, and I listed mine. Also I stated that a scientific test was conducted to see if it could have been reflections, which it proved it could have been, had the craft been circling the area at MACH 1.8.
The could not see what looked like people in the area?
Did they test MP5's with silencers in their tests? Do they know what a ghillie suit is?
http://udtseal.homestead.com/files/sniper1_jpg02701084547722_40.jpg

Yes it does sound fair to me. The Judge decided that the Jury was wrong on a point of law and that since they had determined that there was no violent crime, then under the law they could not find guilty on use of a firearm during a violent crime. Since the Jury was incorrect on the interpretation of the law he was correct to over-rule them. Are you suggesting that Judges should ignore it when Juries get the law wrong and in doing so find someone guilty of something they can't be under the correct interpretation of the law? Which is why the juror was upset about it and stated that had they known the law could be twisted in that way around their ruling, they would have not charged then with the weapons violations.

The ATF set up sharpshooter positions and had helicopters with sharpshooters in them on the first raid. The Davidian's ballistics experts were given the shells which were .308 cartriages. They confirmed that the shells were from the ATF raid on February 28, not from the FBI assault on April 19. And how did they confirm that exactly?
Oh yeah, they are liars coving their butts. No big surprise.
Ballistic testing on empty shell casings...I am sure of it.

You still haven't provided any evidence of this apart from "see the video." All I can find is that they had people trained by them and used military equipment that had been borrowed. I repeat again. please provide cooberating evidence of this claim, i.e. something other than "watch the video."
People trained by Delta? Who do you think designed and trained the F.B.I. HRT into what it is now? Selective wording on their part?
Ok, I'll type this one more time.....The leader of the operation...The lead FBI agent on the scene was asked by reporters in a press conference if the 'military Delta Team' was there. And he tried to blow it off by admitting there were military personnel there. The reporter restated the question to get him to say 'Delta was there', and He admitted that Delta was there. It's on film.
Where did they get the tanks and bradley's from? Oh yeah, they had to lie to the governor, saying the Davidian's had a meth lab there so they could use the national guard in the 'drug' operation. What do you know? They lied again.
(That is the only way National guard and military equipment can be used against civilians in police matters.)
It's ok, just one more lie won't hurt, they were already on a roll.

If he was so willing to allow them access anytime, why when he got advance notice of them coming did he and his people arm up to stop them? The only reason there was a fight was because the Davidian armed themselves when they indavertantly learned that the ATF were coming.
They believe they would be attacked so they took up arms. David gave them the chance to settle it without violence. But as they said, "they had other plans."
Do you know the law? If a uniformed agent or police comes to your house, does not identify himself or his purpose and opens fire, you can return fire.
And again, the front door tapes would have prove if they had identified themselves, and if they fired first. But they 'lost' all three of them.

The ATF claimed that the Davidians had machine guns, which are illegal even in the US. While they may have had semi-automatics that had been made fully automatioc, they didn't have the .50 caliber machine guns the ATF believed they did.
You can buy hellfire systems legally in the U.S. that makes a weapon 'fully automatic'. And if you have a permit, you can have fully automatic military weapons.

Five days into the seige David claimed that if they played a sermon of his on radio they'd surrender, the broadcast happened, David changed his timing to when he'd finished his scrolls, and kept delaying the timing. The FBI did wait, they waited 51 days before acting. How long do you think they should have waited? 2 months? 6 months? a year? 2 years? Until they had a Heaven's Gate or Jones Town?
They would have waited forever had they not lied, and broke the constitution to use military units and equipment. It didn't have to become a siege to being with. Don't forget who chose that route.

Do you have a reference for that other than "Watch the video"?
I do not have to seek another source. The documentary is clear, shows facts (I know what to ignore 90% of the time) and shows the senate hearings.
How would I know what I could trust? Government data on this case is worthless to me. Knowing that liars lie and all that.

So your view of reseach is to find a video on YouTube that says what you want it too and then ignore everything that contradicts it. Very open minded of you there. You are fast going from Devil's Advocate to full blowen Conspiracist.
Yeah, and what are you? Believing the lies of liars because you want to.
It's a google video, B.T.W. Prove it wrong, or walk away.
There is no point in this debate anymore. They broke the constitution, they lied and got caught. What happened to them? Nothing.
Why? Because the Davidians were 'terrorists', 'religious nuts', and whatever other BS the media force fed us.

Let me ask you this....say you had an Arab friend. One day an F.B.I. agent came up and took his picture. The next day, you see your friends face on the news. They are saying he is a top AL-Qaeda operator in Iraq, and 'the buzz' is he is coming to (a city near you)....what would you believe? Would you believe he is a terrorist? No?
Ok, maybe you would not. But would anyone else believe you or him that saw the news say he was a terrorist? Nope. Because how would they know otherwise? Do not underestimate the power of the media.

But again, watch it if you want to see a ton of evidence. Deny it if you like.
It is not my concern anymore.

Darth Rotor

20th July 2007, 08:25 AM

(It is against the Constitution to use military units in civilian situations like that, and the unit in question could only be used if approved by the President)

No, it is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

In the various accounts I have read, there is some question as to whether or not the Governor asked for the Army, not the Guard, which are his troops. The use of regular soldiers from Fort Hood was also, technically, a violation of Posse Comitatus, but was apparently condoned by AG Reno as a valid use of "the military in the war on drugs" based on the spurious allegation before the fire fight (later debunked by ATF agents, apparently) that illicit drugs were at the compound.

The whole thing was a complete mess.

George Washington used the Army against the Whiskey Rebellion, and it was legit, Constitutionally.

DR

Darth Rotor

20th July 2007, 08:35 AM

As stated before, I do not know the credentials of the 'expert's you noted, and I listed mine.

Also I stated that a scientific test was conducted to see if it could have been reflections, which it proved it could have been, had the craft been circling the area at MACH 1.8.
I don't understand what MACH 1.8 has to do with an FBI surveillance plane.

Care to elaborate?

DR

Pardalis

20th July 2007, 09:18 AM

I do not have to seek another source. The documentary is clear

snip

How would I know what I could trust? Government data on this case is worthless to me. Knowing that liars lie and all that.

snip

Yeah, and what are you? Believing the lies of liars because you want to.
It's a google video, B.T.W. Prove it wrong, or walk away.

You sound just like a twoofer. :rolleyes:

Devil's Advocate

20th July 2007, 10:02 AM

I don't understand what MACH 1.8 has to do with an FBI surveillance plane.

Care to elaborate?

DR

Well, if the source of the 'reflection' is stationary like some claimed, then for the orbiting aircraft to catch that same reflection at three flashes per second for five seconds, it would have had to be doing MACH 1.8 in a tight orbit to hit that reflection at the same point so quickly.
It is either static, which the planes movement in line with the sun's reflection will catch it, or it is dynamic, and eliminates the possibility of a static reflection. It was obviously dynamic.

rwguinn

20th July 2007, 10:02 AM

You sound just like a twoofer. :rolleyes:

This surprises you?
IF it waddles, has webbed feet, and quacks...

MR DUCKS
MR NOT DUCKS!
OSMR-CM WANGS?
OIB MR DUCKS!

rwguinn

20th July 2007, 10:21 AM

Well, if the source of the 'reflection' is stationary like some claimed, then for the orbiting aircraft to catch that same reflection at three flashes per second for five seconds, it would have had to be doing MACH 1.8 in a tight orbit to hit that reflection at the same point so quickly.
It is either static, which the planes movement in line with the sun's reflection will catch it, or it is dynamic, and eliminates the possibility of a static reflection. It was obviously dynamic.\

Like reflectionsources (windows, bits of metal, foil, mylar, plastic, general trash, wind chimes, etc Never, ever, move or vibrate in a Texas "breeze"...

Devil's Advocate

20th July 2007, 10:22 AM

You sound just like a twoofer. :rolleyes:

And why would you think I cared about how you perceive me?

How is what I said lacking in logic or critical thinking?
The government agents lie, get caught, lie more, get caught more. And it is not logical for me to lose trust in them?
Trust is hard to gain, but easy to lose.
They deserved to lose my trust in this case.

That does not mean I hate the F.B.I or the A.T.F now. Nor does it mean I'd never trust them again.
They lied countless times about Waco, so with regard to Waco, I did not trust them. That is their fault, not mine.

So let me ask you this....
You have a kid. You take the kid to the store. You buy stuff and go home. You see your kid is hiding something. You ask what he is hiding, he says,"Nothing!" and runs to his room.
You go search his room and find a toy still in the box that you did not buy. It has a sales tag of the store you were at. You ask him if he stole it and he denies it. You go to the store and see security tape of your kid stealing it.
Your kid tells you that he would be able to prove he was innocent of that crime, but he accidently lost or destroyed the evidence that would prove it.
At what point do you stop believing what your kid is saying?

Devil's Advocate

20th July 2007, 10:28 AM

\

Like reflectionsources (windows, bits of metal, foil, mylar, plastic, general trash, wind chimes, etc Never, ever, move or vibrate in a Texas "breeze"...

Well if you would leave your ego and bias stance behind when you start reading, you might pick up the fact that they said the objects were STATIC.

Here is how to define it so it will not further confuse you at what static means.

Static:1 pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality:

Pardalis

20th July 2007, 10:33 AM

DA, I'm just saying you're putting way too much trust on one documentary, a movie, which is a medium that manipulates by definition reality in order to make an impression on its audience. I'm not saying it's necessarily lying, just be cautious of not getting too much impressed by it.

I for one have no time to research this incident but I will not take this movie as the gospel truth. I would definitely have to find other sources to base my opinion on this.

To say "watch the movie" and "the government is lying" doesn't cut it for me.

ETA:
The government agents lie, get caught, lie more, get caught more. And it is not logical for me to lose trust in them?
Trust is hard to gain, but easy to lose.
They deserved to lose my trust in this case.

This is the best way to develop a confirmation bias.

There's this fallacy that is very hard not to do and we should always try to avoid it, the argument from fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy), I myself am guilty of it too often, especially when it has to do with religious nujobs... :o

Devil's Advocate

20th July 2007, 10:44 AM

DA, I'm just saying you're putting way too much trust on one documentary, which is a medium that manipulates by definition reality in order to make an impression on its audience. I'm not saying it's necessarily lying, just be cautious of not getting too much impressed by it.

I for one have no time to research this incident but I will not take this movie as the gospel truth. I would definitely have to find other sources to base my opinion on this.

To say "watch the movie" and "the government is lying" doesn't cut it for me.

Oh I understand, completely. But be honest, what source can you trust if the agents were in fact trying to cover it up?
The whistle blowers that came out about it is who I trust, not the documentary. All that came forward are former FBI, CIA Special Operations, Texas Rangers, and Rescue personnel.

For example, it would show the F.B.I claiming that they never used incendiaries in the building. Then you would see pictures of incendiaries in the building, etc. Just a ton of stuff like that. It is not meant to be a dramatic account, but one that highlights the lies that were told, Senate reaction to the obvious lies, etc.
Another, they put Flash Bang grenade canisters in bags marked 'gun parts' to hide their use, etc. (Flash bangs are also incendiaries.) A very light example, but the examples get far more damning.

You could leave the FLIR part out and there is still mountians of evidence that shows lies, manipulation, and cover up.

Pardalis

20th July 2007, 10:52 AM

Sorry I added some stuff to my post later.

rwguinn

20th July 2007, 12:05 PM

Well if you would leave your ego and bias stance behind when you start reading, you might pick up the fact that they said the objects were STATIC.

Here is how to define it so it will not further confuse you at what static means.

Static:1 pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality:

If you want to be pedantic, at least attempt to be consistent.
Wrong again-Typical twoofer logic.
The source position was static. Obviously the "flashes" were not static--that would make them a continuous source, not a "flash"

A fluttering piece of aluminized mylar, a wind chime, a tin can on a small pebble, rotating mirrors--all will generate a series of flashes from a static position.

Devil's Advocate

20th July 2007, 02:20 PM

If you want to be pedantic, at least attempt to be consistent.
Wrong again-Typical twoofer logic.
The source position was static. Obviously the "flashes" were not static--that would make them a continuous source, not a "flash"

A fluttering piece of aluminized mylar, a wind chime, a tin can on a small pebble, rotating mirrors--all will generate a series of flashes from a static position.

Wrong again-Typical anti-logic.
You mentioned a breeze earlier, and now you're back peddling from the movement of the object(s) in question.
What, there is no Texas breeze anymore? And if you were familiar with the case, there was a lot more that a 'breeze' on that day.

Lets test your logic, shall we?
You have a soldier laying on the ground facing the direction of the building.
Pulses of heat register on FLIR camera at three flashes per second.
So you do research, and find out Delta had been there.
You find out Delta is mainly a Counter Terrorist/ Hostage Rescue team.
You find out units like that do not use wind chimes and tin cans during operations, but rather the H&K MP5 submachine gun in assault entry (breeching) operations. Then you find this little feature about the MP5 is that it has single fire mode, three shot burst, and full automatic.
(Model depending)

And then you wonder if the flashes only happen around people on the ground. And what do you know, they do!
Then, to further prove how logical you are, you pawn it all off on BS to make yourself feel better.
"They were carrying tin cans and wind chimes as peace offerings.
Delta is called into to negotiate, not kill people with surgical precision."
Is that about where you stand?
Call me a 'twoofer' or 'twoofer like' all you want, little one.
It will never make you right.

Corsair 115

20th July 2007, 07:51 PM

Lets test your logic, shall we?
You have a soldier laying on the ground facing the direction of the building.Let me ask you a question: why isn't the body heat of the soldier lying on the ground easily visible on the infrared image?

I ask that because in every FLIR image I've happened to see over the years, be it from military vehicles or police helicopters which use such devices, human beings are always easily visible when using infrared imaging. They stand out quite dramatically in most cases.

So if this FLIR footage caught muzzle flashes from gunfire, then why aren't the persons holding those weapons easily visible?

Or are you saying the U.S. government has access to technology which completely obscures a human being's heat signature from an infrared camera? Because I've never heard of such a development. And if there is, then why isn't that technology being applied to U.S. military vehicles to make them infrared invisible as well?

rwguinn

20th July 2007, 08:28 PM

Let me ask you a question: why isn't the body heat of the soldier lying on the ground easily visible on the infrared image?

I ask that because in every FLIR image I've happened to see over the years, be it from military vehicles or police helicopters which use such devices, human beings are always easily visible when using infrared imaging. They stand out quite dramatically in most cases.

So if this FLIR footage caught muzzle flashes from gunfire, then why aren't the persons holding those weapons easily visible?

Or are you saying the U.S. government has access to technology which completely obscures a human being's heat signature from an infrared camera? Because I've never heard of such a development. And if there is, then why isn't that technology being applied to U.S. military vehicles to make them infrared invisible as well?

There you go pointing out the twoo inconsistencies within single posts! How do you ever expect to know the twoof if you keep giving answers?

Devil's Advocate

20th July 2007, 09:27 PM

Let me ask you a question: why isn't the body heat of the soldier lying on the ground easily visible on the infrared image?

I ask that because in every FLIR image I've happened to see over the years, be it from military vehicles or police helicopters which use such devices, human beings are always easily visible when using infrared imaging. They stand out quite dramatically in most cases.

So if this FLIR footage caught muzzle flashes from gunfire, then why aren't the persons holding those weapons easily visible?

Or are you saying the U.S. government has access to technology which completely obscures a human being's heat signature from an infrared camera? Because I've never heard of such a development. And if there is, then why isn't that technology being applied to U.S. military vehicles to make them infrared invisible as well?

You can see the soldiers.
And it gives a great example from Somalia as well. Watch the video and you'll see. Why is everyone so hung up on the FLIR thing? There is a lot more to the story than just that.

rwguinn

20th July 2007, 09:30 PM

You can see the soldiers.
And it gives a great example from Somalia as well. Watch the video and you'll see. Why is everyone so hung up on the FLIR thing? There is a lot more to the story than just that.
I think the key word there is "Story"
As in "Snow White and the seven dwarves" or "Cinderella", or "Clear and Present Danger"...

Devil's Advocate

20th July 2007, 09:47 PM

I think the key word there is "Story"
As in "Snow White and the seven dwarves" or "Cinderella", or "Clear and Present Danger"...

If you say so. Others are interesting in evidence, not closed minded bias.
So do you have something to add to the thread, or are you just going to continue to follow me around trolling my posts?

LashL

20th July 2007, 09:47 PM

I think the key word there is "Story"
As in "Snow White and the seven dwarves" or "Cinderella", or "Clear and Present Danger"...

Indeed.

If this were Troll Central Middle School, he might even be in line for the headmaster position in a few short years. The troll process is so apparent - they insist that they are "just asking questions" but in the process, make numerous assertions of fact based on nothing but conspiracist tripe. Then, recoil from observations that they are making those assertions and pretend otherwise in fantastically twisted bouts of illogic and sophistry.

Haven't seen this a hundred times before, oh, no, not at all. :rolleyes:

Have fun :)

Devil's Advocate

20th July 2007, 10:28 PM

Indeed.

If this were Troll Central Middle School, he might even be in line for the headmaster position in a few short years. The troll process is so apparent - they insist that they are "just asking questions" but in the process, make numerous assertions of fact based on nothing but conspiracist tripe. Then, recoil from observations that they are making those assertions and pretend otherwise in fantastically twisted bouts of illogic and sophistry.

Haven't seen this a hundred times before, oh, no, not at all. :rolleyes:

Have fun :)
I'll continue to ask questions. If you do not like them, then do not read them.
It is that simple, believe me.
And you call me a Troll? I do not follow people around threads just to run my mouth about them being a troll, now do I? So who is trolling here?

Like a few others, you run your mouth about facts and evidence, but for some reason, you never provide any. You ignore what is shown to counter your single sighted view by calling it 'tripe' when you have not a clue what you'll see, because you choose not to see it. Why is that? Because you're too closed minded to even admit that you might be mistaken. People like you are a part of the problem in this world, not the solution to them.

GwionX

20th July 2007, 10:48 PM

The topic of this thread has somewhat veered from its original course. I suppose I will add some of what I have learned from the Waco incident as well. I apologise in advance if this post further derails.

I will preface the following article I wrote by saying I in no way support any school of thought regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement. I really don't believe in conspiracy theories aimed at our government. I do believe that Waco was an example of bureaucratic incompetence as well as group think mentality (both by the law enforcement and the Davidians)

Work in Progress
It was a simpler time, a more trying time in the history of the United States of America. The year was 1876 and the nation was attempting to recover from the bloodiest war in its brief history. In the southern states, blue clad union soldiers still held their wartime power and used it to police the citizens. A strong military presence was felt throughout the south on an everyday basis; a similar scene to what today could be compared to any number of unstable, militarized Central and South American countries. 1876 was an election year, and the presidential race was a close one, what separates this election from other close races was the strong presence of the military at the polls, and assisting with decisions rendered by the Electoral College. Once a hotly debated and negotiated Presidential winner was determined, the Congress of the United States was compelled to end future military involvement in civilian matters. In 1878 the Posse Comitatus Act was passed into law. The Act prohibits the use of military rule and troops for domestic law-enforcement purposes as well as restricts the military from involvement in civilian decision making processes with overly political and partisan roles (Anderson, 2001).

The Posse Comitatus Act isn’t without some loopholes, and with revisions to the act throughout the last century, those loopholes have become even more accommodating for civilian law enforcement’s requests for military assistance; none more than the “drug law exception” (Kopel & Blackman, 1997). This provision was added to the Posse Comitatus Act in the early 1980’s following President Reagan’s declaration of a war on drugs; it allowed civilian law enforcement agencies to procure the aid of the military, free of charge, for actions taken against a drug nexus. Prior to the drug law exception the costs alone would make enlisting military assistance a prohibitive endeavor for most law enforcement organizations. The exploitation of the Posse Comitatus Act’s loopholes has already had a catastrophic impact on the lives and well-being of some American citizens. The most striking example of this would be the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) and Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) siege on the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas in the spring of 1993. The tactics and resources employed by these civilian law enforcement agencies blurred the line of government policy, and could prove disastrous again if left unchecked.

Serious flaws plagued the BATF’s planning and execution of their ill-fated raid on the Mount Carmel Center, February 28th, 1993. In the spring of 1992 the BATF began investigations on the Branch Davidians in Waco. Their probe revealed the delivery of empty grenade hulls, devices for converting semi-automatic weapons into automatics, receipts showing the purchase other arms, ammunition, as well as powered aluminum, and black gun powder that could possibly be fashioned to create grenades (Hall, 2003). With proper licensing the stock piling of weapons would be legal, however, David Koresh, the leader and pastor of the Branch Davidian Church, had not followed the proper steps required to posses all the arms (Hall, 2003).

It is believed that the Branch Davidians began their interest in, and subsequent stockpiling of weapons for monetary purposes. The Davidians bought, sold, and traded firearms at area gun shows as dealers (Hall, 2003). When the presence of large quantities of arms was combined with the Davidian’s intense focus on the Biblical book of Revelations, and Koresh’s interpretation that the evils of the world were to be bringing war to Mount Carmel’s doorstep; the Davidians began stockpiling more than weapons. They stockpiled food, water and made preparations for an eminent attack (Hall, 2003).

Perhaps this combination of weaponry and religious philosophy is what the BATF found disturbing enough to mount a raid of the magnitude in which they did. The BATF’s approach was a stark contrast to the precedents set by local police, who has just knocked on the front door at Mount Carmel and entered the center without any conflict at all (Easterbrook, 1999). According to Kay Kubicki, a former BATF agent who has served on the counsel of the National Association of Treasury Agents, who reflects back on the BATF executive decisions as: “Waco was a need (for the BATF) to look pretty (Kubicki cited in Larson, 1995).” Agent Kubicki’s ironic revelation could be a more accurate explanation of why the BATF was so compelled to conduct an operation of the magnitude they did, just to serve a search warrant on a community with no prior adversarial confrontations with law enforcement. An operation that’s planning was so preoccupied with political appearances that BATF leadership fabricated allegations of drug involvement, breached the laws of the states of Texas and Alabama, disregarded constitutional statutes, stretched the loopholes of the Posse Comitatus Act, and most importantly gave very little consideration to the welfare of innocent children within the Mount Carmel Center (Kopel & Blackmon, 1997).

The BATF made allegations of a drug nexus at Mount Carmel, in the form of an on-site, operational, methamphetamine laboratory. The BATF had no contemporaneous evidence to support this claim, nor was there any mention of drug law violations on either of the two search warrants obtained by the BATF in regards to their Branch Davidian operation (Kopel & Blackman, 1997). Furthermore, the strategies used to take down a methamphetamine lab are vastly different than the ones used by the BATF on February 28th or by the FBI on April 19th 1993. As Kopel and Blackmon state:

"Had BATF actually been planning to take down a methamphetamine lab, its plans would have been far different. Testimony at the 1995 congressional hearings indicated the potential dangers of an explosion if a meth lab is not taken down properly. For instance, because a stray bullet could cause a major explosion, a “dynamic entry” would be an extremely risky, disfavored approach. In addition, the chemicals involved in methamphetamine production are toxic, capable of injuring lungs, skin, liver, kidneys, the central nervous system, and potentially causing genetic damage. DEA protocol for seizure of meth labs requires that agents wear special clothing and bring other specialized equipment. BATF not only made no such plans, but made express advance plans to use flashbang grenades—grenades which could set off a massive explosion in a meth lab." (Kopel & Blackmon, 1997)

If a true methamphetamine drug nexus actually existed at Mount Carmel Center why were these precautions not taken, and more notably why wasn’t the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) not dramatically more involved. There was only one DEA agent present in observation of the raid on February 28th; as compared to four Army Green Berets, and several officers from the Immigration and Naturalization Services (then INS). Statistics show that the production and distribution of methamphetamines generally yield a longer federal jail sentence than do gun law violations.

[Graph omitted]

Logic would follow that the alleged drug crimes would outweigh the weapons violations, and the
DEA would have had a much more involved role in the operation. Instead, the military was the resource that played that much more involved role, and had no Posse Comitatus restrictions in doing so since the drug law exception had been satisfied, albeit weakly. Notably, no drug charges were ever placed on the surviving Davidians during the extensive criminal trials that followed the conflict.
On February 2nd 1993 the BATF agents began receiving, free of charge, training from Army Green Berets at Ft. Hood, Texas as to the logistics of a military raid on the Mount Caramel Center in Waco, along with an alleged assault plan specific to this operation (Kopel & Blackmon, 1997). The BATF also enlisted the aid of the Texas National Guard for use of three military helicopters during the raid. The Texas National Guard is not under the umbrella of Posse Comitatus, but Texas state law requires that National Guard aid can only be used for law enforcement if there is a drug nexus (Kopel & Blackmon, 1997). Why wouldn’t standard police model helicopters suffice in carrying out this operation? Author Dick Reavis suggests, “BATF supervisors wanted a huge magnificent Blackhawk as their airborne ‘command platform’ though a standard police helicopter could have served just as well (Reavis cited in Easterbrook, 1999).”

The Texas National Guard was not the only force with military equipment in the air over Waco on February 28th. The Alabama National Guard, in a more passive role, provided the BATF with aerial photography. The authorization for the use of the Alabama National Guard was done through a memorandum of agreement by the respective Generals of the Texas and Alabama National Guards. However, Texas law clearly states that the Texas Governor must approve the entry of any military force that is not apart of the U.S. armed forces; which the Alabama National Guard is not. Ann Richards, the Governor of Texas at the time, had no knowledge of either the Texas or Alabama National Guards involvement until after the operation had taken place (Kopel & Blackmon, 1997). It is this type of agreement between the National Guard leaders that neglects and undermines the rightful decision making power of civilian elected authorities. Thus violating state laws and blurring the lines of government policy so as military assistance could be called upon in a civilian law enforcement matter.

Once the BATF had received military assistance in the training of their agents, devising an assault plan, procuring frontline, combat helicopters, and aerial surveillance; the BATF was ready to shock and awe at the expense of a small religious community, of which it was impossible for all of the residents within the target site to be culpable for the allegations contained in the search warrant.

Pre raid trepidation was expressed the Friday before the scheduled Sunday raid by the Department of Treasury’s Office of Enforcement. In the article Raking Up the Ashes, Gordon Witkin states, “After being advised of the plan by ATF Director Stephen Higgins, officials in Treasury’s Office of Enforcement expressed serious reservations, and Assistant Secretary John Simpson ordered the raid scrapped (Witkin, 1995).” Unfortunately Simpson’s resolve wavered and gave Higgins the Ok to proceed as a result of a later telephone conversation where Higgins assured that the raid would not go forward if secrecy and the element of surprise were compromised (Witkin, 1995).

It is apparent that the element of surprise was a key factor in the decision to proceed. Inexplicably, BATF administers leaked the information that a large scale raid was being planned to a number of area media outlets. As a direct result a Waco Television cameraman seeking directions to the Mount Caramel Center asked for those directions from a mailman the Saturday prior to the Sunday raid. In the course of the conversation the cameraman told the postal employee of his news scoop regarding the BATF raid. The mailman was coincidentally a Branch Davidian that quickly notified David Koresh (Witkin, 1995). Having this information being divulged to the Branch Davidians didn’t mean that the BATF knew that their secrecy had been comprised, however BATF undercover agent Robert Rodriguez, who was inside the Branch Davidian church prior to the assault was told directly by Koresh that he knew the raid was coming. Rodriguez then hastily left the center and notified BATF leadership that the element of surprise was lost. Decision makers at the command post, instead of calling of the raid, decided to expediate the operation.

The assault, codenamed “Showtime” by the BATF, began on Sunday, February 28th at 9:30 am. Logic would follow that the best time to conduct a raid upon such a large group of people would be the pre dawn hours while the majority would be sleeping. Even though the pre dawn hours don’t boast a very appealing television time slot, the percentages of success would have to be enhanced for a police action. Be it the time of day, the fact that several thunderous military helicopters were approaching, or that the BATF command post had prior knowledge that the Branch Davidians knew of the raid, it can be reasoned that the BATF organizers and on-site command didn’t put the same amount of priority on the element of surprise as their superiors in Washington had been promised they would.

As the helicopters closed in, two tarp covered cattle trucks sped into the front drive of the Mount Carmel Center, dozens of black clad agents armed with machine guns immediately filed out and began the siege. This played directly into the fearful belief system of the Branch Davidian’s biblical focus. Hall states, “To the Davidians, some of whom had gone to get their own weapons, it was as if everything Koresh had predicted was coming true (Hall, 2003).” Easterbrook describes the situation on a wider scale with, “To the Davidians—Indeed to anyone—the appearance of a frontline combat helicopter would suggest an attack, not an orderly search (Easterbrook, 1999).”
Shortly after the agents departed the vehicles and scattered to their positions, shots rang out. It is widely speculated as to the origin of the initial gunfire, from Davidians attempting to ward of the approaching helicopters, small arms fire from the helicopters themselves targeting Koresh’s second story living quarters, the BATF ground agents firing on the Davidian’s family dogs that were roaming the front of the church, to defiant Davidians firing on what they believed to be evil aggressors. No matter the origin, a horrific firefight commenced leaving four valiant, order abiding BATF agents dead, as well as several Davidians within the building.

When the gunfire ended and the BATF agents had gathered their wounded and retreated to safer positions, the FBI assumed control from the BATF. The FBI truly inherited a lose –lose scenario where federal hostage rescue teams (HRT) were negotiating for hostages who’s religious beliefs strongly discouraged them from wanting rescue. As stated by Quinlan Shea Jr., “The FBI’s ignorance of, and disrespect for (the Davidians) religion led to frustration, anger, and finally contempt. By April the media briefings included the word cult as often and pejoratively as possible (Shea, 1994).” The ultimate FBI resolution to this dilemma was to utilize even more military tactics and equipment at their disposal upon the residents at Mount Carmel.

On April 19, 1993 military tanks equipped with modifications to inject CS gas, a gas that has been banned for military purposes by international treaty, began what would be the final assault on Mount Carmel Center (Shea, 1994). The six hour gassing of all remaining Branch Davidians, some eighty six people, a quarter of which were children, culminated in an engulfing fire and catastrophic loss of life.
Could the BATF investigation and subsequent execution of a search warrant been done effectively without evoking a military mindset and tactical assault plans? The spirit of the Posse Comitaus Act would indicate that it should have been.

References
Andersen, M. (2001). Posse comitatus keeps military from overstepping its bounds. Insight on the News, 17(47), 46. Retrieved May 22, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Easterbrook, G. (1999). Under fire. New Republic, 221(13), 16. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from
EBSCOhost database.
Hall, M. (2003). The ghosts of mount carmel. Texas monthly, 31(4), 36. Retrieved April 24,
2005, from EBSCOhost database.
Kopel, D., & Blackmon, P. (1997). Can Soldiers be Peace Officers? The Waco Disaster and
The Militarization of American Law Enforcement. Retrieved May 22, 2005, from
http://i2i.org
Larson, E. (1995). ATF under siege. Time, 146(4), 20. Retrieved April 17, 2005, from
EBSCOhost database.
Shea, Q. (1994). The lessons of waco. World & I, 9(2), 76. Retrieved April 24, 2005, from
EBSCOhost database.
Witkin, G. (1995). Raking up the ashes. U.S. News & World Report, 119(4). Retrieved April
24, 2005 from EBSCOhost database.

PhantomWolf

22nd July 2007, 06:14 PM

I do not have to seek another source.

Obviously. Since you also obviously couldn't even be bothered reading the report I linked too, I guess there isn't any point in continuing . You've make up your mind based sololy on your video and that's it.

And how did they confirm that exactly?
Oh yeah, they are liars coving their butts. No big surprise.
Ballistic testing on empty shell casings...I am sure of it.

The Davidians' ballistics experts were "liars coving their butts"? How do you figure that? They were the ones that tested the shells and ruled them out, if you'd read the report I linked to you'd know that.

Oh, and any ballistics expert will tell you that the way the pin strikes the shell is unique for every gun. They can link a shell to the pin in a gun as easily as a bullet to the rifling in the barrel. They can also tell how old the shell is, what the calibre is and if it's been outside in the weather or not. Funny that.

Prove it wrong, or walk away.

Many of the allegations made in the video were answered in the report I linked too, the one you refuse to read.

Devil's Advocate

22nd July 2007, 08:28 PM

Many of the allegations made in the video were answered in the report I linked too, the one you refuse to read.

The point here is, the government lied, got caught, tried to cover it up, they failed. Yet nothing happened to any of them.

And keep you assumptions to yourself. I did read it. Did you watch the documentary?
No need to reply to me again. Tonight is my last night here.

rwguinn

22nd July 2007, 08:35 PM

PhantomWolf

22nd July 2007, 08:44 PM

The point here is, the government lied, got caught, tried to cover it up, they failed. Yet nothing happened to any of them.

And keep you assumptions to yourself. I did read it. Did you watch the documentary?
No need to reply to me again. Tonight is my last night here.

If you read it then you'd know that a lot of the claim you keep making have been directly refuted by the surviving Davidians and their experts, not just the Government. Or are you claiming that the Davidians and their experts are lying as well when they say that:

a) The flashes were not gunfire
b) That the Davidians were the only ones shooting
c) That the shells found were not from the FBI
d) That the Davidians started the fires themselves
e) That the Davidians inside the compound shot themselves and each other.

Why would they lie to protect the Goverment when they were suing them?

PhantomWolf

22nd July 2007, 08:53 PM

Which is why the juror was upset about it and stated that had they known the law could be twisted in that way around their ruling, they would have not charged then with the weapons violations.

The law wasn't twisted in any way. The jury got it wrong, plain and simple. The Judge corrected their decision based on the law. Get this through your head. The Jury found that there was no Violent Crime, but they found several defendents guilty of using weapons during a violent crime. Think about it. How can you be guilty of using a weapon during a violent crime if said violent crime never happened. The jury's verdict contridicted itself. They said there was no violent crime, but that during that violent crime several people used weapons. That doesn't make sense. The judge therefore overruled them and struck out the guilty verdicts based on the Jury's conclusion that there was no violent crime. How was this action wrong? Are you arguing that the Judge should have left the guilty verdicts intact even though the jury had determined that there was no violent crime? I don't understand you here. The Judge overturned guilty verdicts, but you are somehow trying to turn this into Government malficence against the defendants because the judge overruled the jury. Why is it so terrible that the judge struck out guilty verdicts and replaced them with not guilty? Especially since you seem to be favouring the Davidians and thus any non-guilty verdict should be a boone for your side. You seem to just be agruing about it for the sake of arguing because it was the "government" overruling the "people" regardless of the legality or the result.

Devil's Advocate

22nd July 2007, 08:58 PM

PhantomWolf,

Did the government say they did not use incendiary devices at a press conference? Yes. That is a lie. Get that through your head. It was a lie.
It was a proven lie. A lie they tried to cover. That is criminal.
Once you admit that fact, then you might get somewhere.

PhantomWolf

22nd July 2007, 09:48 PM

Did the government say they did not use incendiary devices at a press conference? Yes. That is a lie. Get that through your head. It was a lie.

This is quite well covered in the report I linked to which you claim to have read. If you had read it, then you would know that the problem was the use of pyrotechnic devices, not incendiary (pryotechnic being rounds that use fire to create the CS, but while getting hot are not designed to set fires, whereas Incendary rounds are designed to set fires.) The rounds used were pyrotechnic and while they shouldn't have been used, they were not incendiary. You would also know that there was a lot of confussion among those at the scene as to if the rounds used were even pyrotechnic. They were often refered to as Military Round or Bubbleheads rather than pyrotechnic. You would also know that those that said initially that they hadn't been used truely believed that they hadn't, because they'd ordered that they weren't be be used and they weren't advised that those orders had been disobeyed. You'd also know that the FBI and Reno disagreed over what "the compound" meant and as far as the FBI were concerned they didn't use the grenades on "the compound" because they were used on the concrete construction bunker, not on the main building. As such saying that they weren't used on "the compound" would not have been a lie. Finally, they didn't exactly cover it up. If you had read the report you'd know that one of the shells was in evidence with the Texas Rangers, as well as photos of it being there. You'd know that many reports used the words "military rounds" or "bubbleheads" stating that they had been fired at the concrete construction area. You'd know that the so called "missing page" was only missing in one report given to the commision, that they had been given three and the "missing page" was in two of the three. You would also know that the three rounds in question were fired well away from the main house and were fired several hours before the fires, fires that the remaining Davidians claimed were set by David and the others.

But of course since you read the rreport you do know all thins, and are totally igoring it because it dares to disagree with your position.

Oh, and by the way. How does this have anything to do with the Davidians own experts saying that:

a) The flashes were not gunfire
b) That the Davidians were the only ones shooting
c) That the shells found were not from the FBI
d) That the Davidians started the fires themselves
e) That the Davidians inside the compound shot themselves and each other.

and how does it have anything to do with the Judge overturning the Guilty verdicts?