[Merged] OK City Bombings: Tapes/Conspiracy theory, Raise Questions

MattusMaximus · 27th September 2009, 05:38 PM

It'll be interesting to see how this one develops. Apparently, after the FBI released some security video of the day of the fateful OKC bombing, the conspiracy kooks are already crawling out of the woodwork...

Attorney: OKC bombing tapes appear edited

Quote:

Long-secret security tapes showing the chaos immediately after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building are blank in the minutes before the blast and appear to have been edited, an attorney who obtained the recordings said Sunday.

"The real story is what's missing," said Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who obtained the recordings through the federal Freedom of Information Act as part of an unofficial inquiry he is conducting into the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more. ...

... The tapes turned over by the FBI came from security cameras various companies had mounted outside office buildings near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They are blank at points before 9:02 a.m., when a truck bomb carrying a 4,000 pound fertilizer-and-fuel-oil bomb detonated in front of the building, Trentadue said.

"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said. ...

... "The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see."

And, in true CT fashion, everything points to THE CONSPIRACY!!!

Quote:

... The FBI in the past refused to release the security camera recordings, leading Trentadue and others to contend the government was hiding evidence that others were involved in the attack. ...

So because the FBI wasn't sharing the video with him, Trentadue claimed they were hiding evidence. Yet when the FBI gave him the videos, because they apparently didn't show what he wanted them to show, Trentadue continues to allege some kind of cover-up or conspiracy.

Wow, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't with these CT folks.

Cue spooky music in 3... 2... 1...

ETA: It's also interesting to note that apparently there was video footage from the area leading up to the 9:02 explosion outside the Murrah Federal Building. Linky...

Quote:

... At 8:57 a.m. CST the same Regency Towers Apartments' lobby security camera—which had recorded Nichols' pickup truck three days earlier—recorded the Ryder truck [containing the bomb] heading towards the Murrah Federal Building.

Nice cherry-picking there, Mr. Trentadue.

JoeyDonuts · 27th September 2009, 08:39 PM

So...he's basically saying that he thinks something's wrong with the tapes, but not saying what that might mean. I suppose that bit comes later.

When the second plane hit the WTC, television signals were interrupted. CC systems aren't the same principle, but a large seismic disturbance like the OKC bomb yield could certainly be expected to cause an interruption.

I guess the question really is...where's he goin' with this?

Infoexcavator · 28th September 2009, 12:07 AM

The broken security cameras is such a common claim by the government that it should be considered a lie in 99% of the cases. Just from the top of my head I remember the police lying about the security cams and confiscating bystanders cameras to never be found again when they murdered Oscar Grant and Jean Charles De Menezes.

JoeyDonuts · 28th September 2009, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Infoexcavator

The broken security cameras is such a common claim by the government that it should be considered a lie in 99% of the cases.

Ahem.

What?

Greediguts · 28th September 2009, 04:24 AM

This also from the AP article:

Quote:

"Trentadue began looking into the bombing after his brother, Kenneth Trentadue, died at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center in August 1995. Kenneth Trentadue was a convicted bank robber who was held at the federal prison after being picked up as a parole violator at his home in San Diego in June 1995.
He was never a bombing suspect, but Jesse Trentadue alleges guards mistook his brother for one and beat him to death during an interrogation. The official cause of Kenneth Trentadue's death is listed as suicide, but his body had 41 wounds and bruises that Jesse Trentadue believes could have come only from a beating.
A judge in 2001 awarded Kenneth Trentadue's family $1.1 million for extreme emotional distress in the government's handling of his death."

I'm not sure if this man thinks the government had something to do with the bombing as I'm not familiar with him or the details surrounding his brother's death. Maybe he feels if they lied and tried to cover-up details about his brother's death that possibly they are hiding something else??

But (as JoeyDonuts said) where is he going with this?

themusicteacher · 28th September 2009, 11:30 AM

Check it out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/..._bombing_video

So, where are they going with this? Certainly, there are those that will run with the blank spots and say, "See, the government is covering something up." It does raise some interesting questions but I hate to see this go to the realm of complete idiocy and conspiracy crap. There could be several explanations for this and the official one (that they were changing over tape) is more than plausible. I'll wait until more evidence, if any, presents itself.

bokonon · 28th September 2009, 11:33 AM

Four cameras in four different buildings? Unless they were "blank" for hours or days (i.e., nobody bothered to change the tape when it ran out), I'd entertain a bit of conspiracy crap on that coincidence myself.

GreNME · 28th September 2009, 11:41 AM

From the article:

Quote:

"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said.

He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because "they had run out of tape" or "the tape was being replaced."

"The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see."

Well, actually, there are such things as coincidences, and simply asserting otherwise in a folksy tone doesn't change that fact.

I'd prefer to see a run-down of explanations as to the blank spots, and the timing of the individual blank spots themselves, before making the grand deduction presented here that the loss of footage is "evidence" that something is being covered up. After all, if footage from the days prior to the bombing have the same relative gaps in footage due to tape changes, then the claim that they were all having tapes changed at around the beginning of the work day seems to mesh with what "government officials claim" (which ones?) about the footage.

oldhat · 28th September 2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

OKLAHOMA CITY – Long-secret security tapes showing the chaos immediately after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building are blank in the minutes before the blast and appear to have been edited, an attorney who obtained the recordings said Sunday.

"The real story is what's missing," said Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who obtained the recordings through the federal Freedom of Information Act as part of an unofficial inquiry he is conducting into the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more.

I have a feeling where this is going...

Quote:

"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said.

You mean the tape ribbon somehow went offline at the same time as an enormous bomb that destroyed the building exploded? COULD IT HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE BOMB'S SHOCKWAVE?!?!?

ponderingturtle · 28th September 2009, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

From the article:

Well, actually, there are such things as coincidences, and simply asserting otherwise in a folksy tone doesn't change that fact.

I'd prefer to see a run-down of explanations as to the blank spots, and the timing of the individual blank spots themselves, before making the grand deduction presented here that the loss of footage is "evidence" that something is being covered up. After all, if footage from the days prior to the bombing have the same relative gaps in footage due to tape changes, then the claim that they were all having tapes changed at around the beginning of the work day seems to mesh with what "government officials claim" (which ones?) about the footage.

Was power cut off to the area?

JJM 777 · 28th September 2009, 11:46 AM

How "enormous" was the bomb anyway?

oldhat · 28th September 2009, 11:50 AM

4,800 pounds.

uk_dave · 28th September 2009, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

How "enormous" was the bomb anyway?

In technical terms.... "Very"

HeyLeroy · 28th September 2009, 11:52 AM

A link to some of the videos: http://tinyurl.com/okvids

From the link:

Quote:

FBI agents did not report finding any security tapes from the Murrah Building itself. Agents reported a cleaner, a loan company and another business in nearby buildings had surveillance cameras, but the buildings’ owner said "all ... are ‘dummy’ cameras and nothing is videotaped.”

themusicteacher · 28th September 2009, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

How "enormous" was the bomb anyway?

Blew-off-half-a-building big.

Questioninggeller · 28th September 2009, 12:44 PM

Let's revisit the facts of the bombing:

1) McVeigh's favorite book that he told his friends to read and sold at gun shows was The Turner Diaries.
2) In that book, the "hero" starts a race war and brings down the federal government by setting off an Ammonium Nitrate Bomb loaded in a rental truck at a federal government building.
3) McVeigh rented the truck and made practice bombs copying what happened in the book.
4) When he set off the bomb he called William Pierce, author the Turner Diaries. (No one answered the phone.)
5) McVeigh was caught and admitted to it.

Even if the government purposely/accidently removed parts of the video does that change the other facts? Does that allow for a conspiracy?

I wouldn't be surprised if the tapes were carelessly controlled, like with the missing Moon landing tapes.

Questioninggeller · 28th September 2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by themusicteacher

Check it out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/..._bombing_video

So, where are they going with this? Certainly, there are those that will run with the blank spots and say, "See, the government is covering something up." It does raise some interesting questions but I hate to see this go to the realm of complete idiocy and conspiracy crap. There could be several explanations for this and the official one (that they were changing over tape) is more than plausible. I'll wait until more evidence, if any, presents itself.

Interesting. The Associated Press article cites "Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who obtained the recordings through the federal Freedom of Information Act as part of an unofficial inquiry he is conducting into the April 19, 1995, bombing." According to the article, Trentadue was the source for the news media's tape.

Jesse Trentadue's brother Kenneth Trentadue died in the bombing and has engaged in several lawsuits with the federal government including a $1.1 million dollar award, and the courts ruled that Trentadue shouldn't be able to interview Terry Nichols for his own inquiry.

Jesse Trentadue believes "Federal authorities were tipped to McVeigh's plans, but failed to stop the bombing and let others walk away from prosecution." The media failed to report that.

Maybe the government messed up Trentadue's FOI request or Trentadue gave the news media a faulty tape?

HeyLeroy · 28th September 2009, 01:10 PM

There's a already a thread on this in the (where else?) CT section: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155034

Darth Rotor · 28th September 2009, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by oldhat

I have a feeling where this is going...

You mean the tape ribbon somehow went offline at the same time as an enormous bomb that destroyed the building exploded? COULD IT HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE BOMB'S SHOCKWAVE?!?!?

Maybe somebody "pulled" the plug on the camera.

JJM 777 · 28th September 2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Even if the government purposely/accidently removed parts of the video does that change the other facts? Does that allow for a conspiracy?

The claimed conspiracy is usually not "government lying that X did this", but rather "CIA having foreknowledge that X would do this, which suited the interests of CIA to [destroy some sensitive documents etc.], so CIA failed to prevent it / covertly inspired the person to do it / planted some extra explosives to increase the effect".

GreNME · 28th September 2009, 01:49 PM

Guys, it seems the video cut out before the bombs went off and came back on. I'm not sure that assumptions of the explosion creating the blank spots would make sense under that condition.

It makes more sense that the tapes needed to be changed. Considering the most time one would get out of a normal video tape at that time wold be between 6-10 hours (depending on speed of the tape and quality of the format), having the tapes changing out at the beginning of the work day makes sense.

Psi Baba · 28th September 2009, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

The claimed conspiracy is usually not "government lying that X did this", but rather "CIA having foreknowledge that X would do this, which suited the interests of CIA to [destroy some sensitive documents etc.], so CIA failed to prevent it / covertly inspired the person to do it / planted some extra explosives to increase the effect".

I suppose the other possible reason for a cover-up would be to hide a rather embarrassing lapse in security.

bokonon · 28th September 2009, 02:05 PM

If they're putting in new tapes, it makes sense that this would be done at the beginning of the day. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they'd be changing tapes at 9:02 AM when the bomb went off. Surely you'd want to get all the people arriving for work on the security tape, and most work days in office buildings start at 8 rather than 9. Even if the day starts at 9, people will be arriving before that.

It also doesn't makes sense that the explosion would have caused blank spots in the tapes, if the tapes show people running in panic after the explosion.

I could understand one or even two, but four cameras in four buildings? The most reasonable explanation to me, with the limited information I have, is that the tapes have been edited.

MaGZ · 28th September 2009, 02:14 PM

The missing portions of the tape showed a group of people with ATF on their jackets early that morning looking for a bomb.

Clippy · 28th September 2009, 02:26 PM

My guess is that the tapes showed John Doe 2.

Questioninggeller · 28th September 2009, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

The claimed conspiracy is usually not "government lying that X did this", but rather "CIA having foreknowledge that X would do this, which suited the interests of CIA to [destroy some sensitive documents etc.], so CIA failed to prevent it / covertly inspired the person to do it / planted some extra explosives to increase the effect".

What does that have to do with my point? How does purposely/accidently deleted/destroyed tapes demonstrate that and change what we know?

And for the record, I did write:

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Jesse Trentadue believes "Federal authorities were tipped to McVeigh's plans, but failed to stop the bombing and let others walk away from prosecution." The media failed to report that.

casebro · 28th September 2009, 04:47 PM

One security company for the four buildings, all input sent to a central location, one doofus changing that tapes at 9:02?

So how long were we tapeless? I MaGZ is right, they would have had to miss an hour or more.

LostAngeles · 28th September 2009, 05:09 PM

OH COME THE **** ONi

geni · 28th September 2009, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Even if the government purposely/accidently removed parts of the video does that change the other facts? Does that allow for a conspiracy?

There are various conspiracies suggested. For example the govement knew that McVeigh was part of a larger group than admited but failed to investiage properly then covered up the fact that there had been anything pointing towarards anyone else in the first place.

Quote:

I wouldn't be surprised if the tapes were carelessly controlled, like with the missing Moon landing tapes.

Preserving evidence and archiveing NASA stuff operate differently.

Questioninggeller · 28th September 2009, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by geni

There are various conspiracies suggested. For example the govement knew that McVeigh was part of a larger group than admited but failed to investiage properly then covered up the fact that there had been anything pointing towarards anyone else in the first place.

Yeah? So tapes blanked (by accident or purpose) mean what?

Originally Posted by geni

Preserving evidence and archiveing NASA stuff operate differently.

Agreed. My point was if a government agency can lose important footage like human's first steps on a world that isn't the Earth then maybe four fuzzy survelliance cameras from a decade ago may not be so well-taken care of by another government agency.

geni · 28th September 2009, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Yeah? So tapes blanked (by accident or purpose) mean what?

No idea I've never looked at the theories in any detail.

Quote:

Agreed. My point was if a government agency can lose important footage like human's first steps on a world that isn't the Earth then maybe four fuzzy survelliance cameras from a decade ago may not be so well-taken care of by another government agency.

The NASA issue appears to have been due to regular wipeing of tapes. Those charged with preserveing evidence shouldn't have that problem and by the time of the bombing were expected to preserve everything of significance.

Questioninggeller · 28th September 2009, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by geni

The NASA issue appears to have been due to regular wipeing of tapes. Those charged with preserveing evidence shouldn't have that problem and by the time of the bombing were expected to preserve everything of significance.

My point was simple. If NASA could make a "goof" and mess up important tapes (like the Moon landing!!!) then its not that far out to suggest the FBI could mess up four, what appears to be, minor survelliance tapes from 14 years ago. Law enforcement have been known to destroy evidence on accident for a variety of reasons.

(The source is a conspiracy theorist who gave the media the tapes. We are assuming this copy is exactly what the government has right now.)

GreNME · 28th September 2009, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by bokonon

If they're putting in new tapes, it makes sense that this would be done at the beginning of the day. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they'd be changing tapes at 9:02 AM when the bomb went off. Surely you'd want to get all the people arriving for work on the security tape, and most work days in office buildings start at 8 rather than 9. Even if the day starts at 9, people will be arriving before that.

They weren't government cameras? If so, the work day beginning at nine and the workers not actually beginning work until nine makes perfect sense to me.

Originally Posted by bokonon

I could understand one or even two, but four cameras in four buildings? The most reasonable explanation to me, with the limited information I have, is that the tapes have been edited.

They were from four different buildings? Hmmm... I'd like to see the tapes (and hopefully timestamps) myself before I judge further. More info would be nice too.

RandFan · 28th September 2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

"There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said

"The laws of chance predict coincidence. We would live in a very bizaare world if there were none" --John Allen Paulos

That said it is interesting. I could come up with a lot of speculation. None of it having anything to do with the bombing. There are a lot of questions I would have before coming to any conclusion.

RandFan · 28th September 2009, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by bokonon

The most reasonable explanation to me, with the limited information I have, is that the tapes have been edited.

Meh~

This is what JREF is all about. Of course this thread really belongs in CT. If you want to draw conclusions based on limited knowledge that's fine but you are logic is to draw conclusions from ignorance "I can't explain it therefore the answer must be X".

JoeyDonuts · 28th September 2009, 07:41 PM

I refer all further inquiry into this matter to the above post.

Tricky · 28th September 2009, 07:46 PM

This is one of those threads that could go either way. Since the "Social Issues" thread had more posts, I merged the "Conspiracy Theory" thread into it, rather than the reverse.

Posted By:Tricky

MattusMaximus · 28th September 2009, 08:08 PM

As to the whole business about Trentadue claiming these tapes are "erased" - he seems to imply that there is no footage of the time immediately before the explosion, but there most definitely is such footage. I linked to a citation of it in the OP.

So, if it IS a conspiracy, it's a pretty ham-fisted one... them gol durn guvment agents couldn't even get all the damn tapes!

MattusMaximus · 28th September 2009, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Meh~

This is what JREF is all about. Of course this thread really belongs in CT. If you want to draw conclusions based on limited knowledge that's fine but you are logic is to draw conclusions from ignorance "I can't explain it therefore the answer must be X".

Yup, the good ol' argument from ignorance. It never fails to... fail.

bokonon · 28th September 2009, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Meh~

This is what JREF is all about. Of course this thread really belongs in CT. If you want to draw conclusions based on limited knowledge that's fine but you are logic is to draw conclusions from ignorance "I can't explain it therefore the answer must be X".

Meh, I draw conclusions based on limited knowledge all the time, as everyone does. If more information becomes available, my conclusions may be revised. Either my current conclusions or my revised conclusions may be incorrect, in spite of being consistent with the facts that have been presented. And I never said it MUST be X, just that X is currently the most reasonable explanation for the facts given, IMO. It's possible that the facts that have been presented are incorrect. Meh.

If you don't have a better explanation, that's fine, and if you'd prefer not to offer any tentative conclusions because you don't feel you have enough facts available, that's fine too.

I'm comfortable drawing a tentative conclusion from the set of facts that's been presented. I notice you haven't said anything substantive to refute any of those facts, or to demonstrate how my conclusion might be inconsistent with those facts. Calling the set of facts that have been presented "ignorance" seems a stretch.

If this thread was in CT, I wouldn't have anything to say, because I don't read that section. And I haven't speculated about why someone might have wanted to edit one or more of the tapes to eliminate images from a critical time period.

27th September 2009, 05:38 PM	#1
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	OK City Bombings: Tapes/Conspiracy theory, Raise Questions It'll be interesting to see how this one develops. Apparently, after the FBI released some security video of the day of the fateful OKC bombing, the conspiracy kooks are already crawling out of the woodwork... Attorney: OKC bombing tapes appear edited Quote: Long-secret security tapes showing the chaos immediately after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building are blank in the minutes before the blast and appear to have been edited, an attorney who obtained the recordings said Sunday. "The real story is what's missing," said Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who obtained the recordings through the federal Freedom of Information Act as part of an unofficial inquiry he is conducting into the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more. ... ... The tapes turned over by the FBI came from security cameras various companies had mounted outside office buildings near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They are blank at points before 9:02 a.m., when a truck bomb carrying a 4,000 pound fertilizer-and-fuel-oil bomb detonated in front of the building, Trentadue said. "Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said. ... ... "The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see." And, in true CT fashion, everything points to THE CONSPIRACY!!! Quote: ... The FBI in the past refused to release the security camera recordings, leading Trentadue and others to contend the government was hiding evidence that others were involved in the attack. ... So because the FBI wasn't sharing the video with him, Trentadue claimed they were hiding evidence. Yet when the FBI gave him the videos, because they apparently didn't show what he wanted them to show, Trentadue continues to allege some kind of cover-up or conspiracy. Wow, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't with these CT folks. Cue spooky music in 3... 2... 1... ETA: It's also interesting to note that apparently there was video footage from the area leading up to the 9:02 explosion outside the Murrah Federal Building. Linky... Quote: ... At 8:57 a.m. CST the same Regency Towers Apartments' lobby security camera—which had recorded Nichols' pickup truck three days earlier—recorded the Ryder truck [containing the bomb] heading towards the Murrah Federal Building. Nice cherry-picking there, Mr. Trentadue.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 27th September 2009 at 05:57 PM.

27th September 2009, 08:39 PM	#2
JoeyDonuts Frequencies Not Known To Normals Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Parts Unknown Posts: 10,636	So...he's basically saying that he thinks something's wrong with the tapes, but not saying what that might mean. I suppose that bit comes later. When the second plane hit the WTC, television signals were interrupted. CC systems aren't the same principle, but a large seismic disturbance like the OKC bomb yield could certainly be expected to cause an interruption. I guess the question really is...where's he goin' with this?
	__________________ _{EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!}

28th September 2009, 12:07 AM	#3
Infoexcavator Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 474	The broken security cameras is such a common claim by the government that it should be considered a lie in 99% of the cases. Just from the top of my head I remember the police lying about the security cams and confiscating bystanders cameras to never be found again when they murdered Oscar Grant and Jean Charles De Menezes.
	Last edited by Infoexcavator; 28th September 2009 at 12:08 AM.

28th September 2009, 04:07 AM	#4
JoeyDonuts Frequencies Not Known To Normals Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Parts Unknown Posts: 10,636	Originally Posted by Infoexcavator The broken security cameras is such a common claim by the government that it should be considered a lie in 99% of the cases. Ahem. What?
	__________________ _{EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!}

28th September 2009, 11:30 AM	#6
themusicteacher Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Burque, NM Posts: 708	OK City Bombings: Tapes Raise Questions Check it out: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/..._bombing_video So, where are they going with this? Certainly, there are those that will run with the blank spots and say, "See, the government is covering something up." It does raise some interesting questions but I hate to see this go to the realm of complete idiocy and conspiracy crap. There could be several explanations for this and the official one (that they were changing over tape) is more than plausible. I'll wait until more evidence, if any, presents itself.

28th September 2009, 04:24 AM	#5
Greediguts Atheist for Jesus Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 633	This also from the AP article: Quote: "Trentadue began looking into the bombing after his brother, Kenneth Trentadue, died at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center in August 1995. Kenneth Trentadue was a convicted bank robber who was held at the federal prison after being picked up as a parole violator at his home in San Diego in June 1995. He was never a bombing suspect, but Jesse Trentadue alleges guards mistook his brother for one and beat him to death during an interrogation. The official cause of Kenneth Trentadue's death is listed as suicide, but his body had 41 wounds and bruises that Jesse Trentadue believes could have come only from a beating. A judge in 2001 awarded Kenneth Trentadue's family $1.1 million for extreme emotional distress in the government's handling of his death." I'm not sure if this man thinks the government had something to do with the bombing as I'm not familiar with him or the details surrounding his brother's death. Maybe he feels if they lied and tried to cover-up details about his brother's death that possibly they are hiding something else?? But (as JoeyDonuts said) where is he going with this?

28th September 2009, 11:33 AM	#7
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	Four cameras in four different buildings? Unless they were "blank" for hours or days (i.e., nobody bothered to change the tape when it ran out), I'd entertain a bit of conspiracy crap on that coincidence myself.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

28th September 2009, 11:41 AM	#8
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	From the article: Quote: "Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said. He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because "they had run out of tape" or "the tape was being replaced." "The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see." Well, actually, there are such things as coincidences, and simply asserting otherwise in a folksy tone doesn't change that fact. I'd prefer to see a run-down of explanations as to the blank spots, and the timing of the individual blank spots themselves, before making the grand deduction presented here that the loss of footage is "evidence" that something is being covered up. After all, if footage from the days prior to the bombing have the same relative gaps in footage due to tape changes, then the claim that they were all having tapes changed at around the beginning of the work day seems to mesh with what "government officials claim" (which ones?) about the footage.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

28th September 2009, 11:42 AM	#9
oldhat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 997	Quote: OKLAHOMA CITY – Long-secret security tapes showing the chaos immediately after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building are blank in the minutes before the blast and appear to have been edited, an attorney who obtained the recordings said Sunday. "The real story is what's missing," said Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who obtained the recordings through the federal Freedom of Information Act as part of an unofficial inquiry he is conducting into the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more. I have a feeling where this is going... Quote: "Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said. You mean the tape ribbon somehow went offline at the same time as an enormous bomb that destroyed the building exploded? COULD IT HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE BOMB'S SHOCKWAVE?!?!?
oldhat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 997	__________________ "I predict a complete rollover in Congress in 2010 to the Republicans. Bank on it. Laugh, but file it away in the back of your mind." -Beerina

28th September 2009, 11:43 AM	#10
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by GreNME From the article: Well, actually, there are such things as coincidences, and simply asserting otherwise in a folksy tone doesn't change that fact. I'd prefer to see a run-down of explanations as to the blank spots, and the timing of the individual blank spots themselves, before making the grand deduction presented here that the loss of footage is "evidence" that something is being covered up. After all, if footage from the days prior to the bombing have the same relative gaps in footage due to tape changes, then the claim that they were all having tapes changed at around the beginning of the work day seems to mesh with what "government officials claim" (which ones?) about the footage. Was power cut off to the area?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

28th September 2009, 11:46 AM	#11
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	How "enormous" was the bomb anyway?

28th September 2009, 11:50 AM	#12
oldhat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 997	4,800 pounds.
oldhat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 997	__________________ "I predict a complete rollover in Congress in 2010 to the Republicans. Bank on it. Laugh, but file it away in the back of your mind." -Beerina

28th September 2009, 11:50 AM	#13
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by JJM 777 How "enormous" was the bomb anyway? In technical terms.... "Very"
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

28th September 2009, 11:52 AM	#14
HeyLeroy Vegan Cannibal Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Going off the rails on the Crazy Train. Posts: 5,565	A link to some of the videos: http://tinyurl.com/okvids From the link: Quote: FBI agents did not report finding any security tapes from the Murrah Building itself. Agents reported a cleaner, a loan company and another business in nearby buildings had surveillance cameras, but the buildings’ owner said "all ... are ‘dummy’ cameras and nothing is videotaped.”
	__________________ Cows are in large numbers, and do not serve any other purpose, other than to eat grass, and moo -- makaya325 I ♥ my kids. I ♠ my dog. I ♣ my baby Harp Seal.

28th September 2009, 12:04 PM	#15
themusicteacher Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Burque, NM Posts: 708	Originally Posted by JJM 777 How "enormous" was the bomb anyway? Blew-off-half-a-building big.

28th September 2009, 12:44 PM	#16
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	Let's revisit the facts of the bombing: 1) McVeigh's favorite book that he told his friends to read and sold at gun shows was The Turner Diaries. 2) In that book, the "hero" starts a race war and brings down the federal government by setting off an Ammonium Nitrate Bomb loaded in a rental truck at a federal government building. 3) McVeigh rented the truck and made practice bombs copying what happened in the book. 4) When he set off the bomb he called William Pierce, author the Turner Diaries. (No one answered the phone.) 5) McVeigh was caught and admitted to it. Even if the government purposely/accidently removed parts of the video does that change the other facts? Does that allow for a conspiracy? I wouldn't be surprised if the tapes were carelessly controlled, like with the missing Moon landing tapes.
	Last edited by Questioninggeller; 28th September 2009 at 12:58 PM.

28th September 2009, 01:08 PM	#17
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by themusicteacher Check it out: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/..._bombing_video So, where are they going with this? Certainly, there are those that will run with the blank spots and say, "See, the government is covering something up." It does raise some interesting questions but I hate to see this go to the realm of complete idiocy and conspiracy crap. There could be several explanations for this and the official one (that they were changing over tape) is more than plausible. I'll wait until more evidence, if any, presents itself. Interesting. The Associated Press article cites "Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who obtained the recordings through the federal Freedom of Information Act as part of an unofficial inquiry he is conducting into the April 19, 1995, bombing." According to the article, Trentadue was the source for the news media's tape. Jesse Trentadue's brother Kenneth Trentadue died in the bombing and has engaged in several lawsuits with the federal government including a $1.1 million dollar award, and the courts ruled that Trentadue shouldn't be able to interview Terry Nichols for his own inquiry. Jesse Trentadue believes "Federal authorities were tipped to McVeigh's plans, but failed to stop the bombing and let others walk away from prosecution." The media failed to report that. Maybe the government messed up Trentadue's FOI request or Trentadue gave the news media a faulty tape?
	Last edited by Questioninggeller; 28th September 2009 at 01:12 PM.

28th September 2009, 01:10 PM	#18
HeyLeroy Vegan Cannibal Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Going off the rails on the Crazy Train. Posts: 5,565	There's a already a thread on this in the (where else?) CT section: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155034
	__________________ Cows are in large numbers, and do not serve any other purpose, other than to eat grass, and moo -- makaya325 I ♥ my kids. I ♠ my dog. I ♣ my baby Harp Seal.

28th September 2009, 01:13 PM	#19
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by oldhat I have a feeling where this is going... You mean the tape ribbon somehow went offline at the same time as an enormous bomb that destroyed the building exploded? COULD IT HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE BOMB'S SHOCKWAVE?!?!? Maybe somebody "pulled" the plug on the camera.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

28th September 2009, 01:39 PM	#20
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by Questioninggeller Even if the government purposely/accidently removed parts of the video does that change the other facts? Does that allow for a conspiracy? The claimed conspiracy is usually not "government lying that X did this", but rather "CIA having foreknowledge that X would do this, which suited the interests of CIA to [destroy some sensitive documents etc.], so CIA failed to prevent it / covertly inspired the person to do it / planted some extra explosives to increase the effect".

28th September 2009, 01:49 PM	#21
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Guys, it seems the video cut out before the bombs went off and came back on. I'm not sure that assumptions of the explosion creating the blank spots would make sense under that condition. It makes more sense that the tapes needed to be changed. Considering the most time one would get out of a normal video tape at that time wold be between 6-10 hours (depending on speed of the tape and quality of the format), having the tapes changing out at the beginning of the work day makes sense.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

28th September 2009, 01:56 PM	#22
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,179	Originally Posted by JJM 777 The claimed conspiracy is usually not "government lying that X did this", but rather "CIA having foreknowledge that X would do this, which suited the interests of CIA to [destroy some sensitive documents etc.], so CIA failed to prevent it / covertly inspired the person to do it / planted some extra explosives to increase the effect". I suppose the other possible reason for a cover-up would be to hide a rather embarrassing lapse in security.
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

28th September 2009, 02:05 PM	#23
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	If they're putting in new tapes, it makes sense that this would be done at the beginning of the day. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they'd be changing tapes at 9:02 AM when the bomb went off. Surely you'd want to get all the people arriving for work on the security tape, and most work days in office buildings start at 8 rather than 9. Even if the day starts at 9, people will be arriving before that. It also doesn't makes sense that the explosion would have caused blank spots in the tapes, if the tapes show people running in panic after the explosion. I could understand one or even two, but four cameras in four buildings? The most reasonable explanation to me, with the limited information I have, is that the tapes have been edited.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

28th September 2009, 02:14 PM	#24
MaGZ Suspended Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,319	The missing portions of the tape showed a group of people with ATF on their jackets early that morning looking for a bomb.
MaGZ Suspended Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,319

28th September 2009, 02:26 PM	#25
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	My guess is that the tapes showed John Doe 2.
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

28th September 2009, 02:59 PM	#26
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by JJM 777 The claimed conspiracy is usually not "government lying that X did this", but rather "CIA having foreknowledge that X would do this, which suited the interests of CIA to [destroy some sensitive documents etc.], so CIA failed to prevent it / covertly inspired the person to do it / planted some extra explosives to increase the effect". What does that have to do with my point? How does purposely/accidently deleted/destroyed tapes demonstrate that and change what we know? And for the record, I did write: Originally Posted by Questioninggeller Jesse Trentadue believes "Federal authorities were tipped to McVeigh's plans, but failed to stop the bombing and let others walk away from prosecution." The media failed to report that.

28th September 2009, 04:47 PM	#27
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	One security company for the four buildings, all input sent to a central location, one doofus changing that tapes at 9:02? So how long were we tapeless? I MaGZ is right, they would have had to miss an hour or more.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

28th September 2009, 05:09 PM	#28
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	OH COME THE ONi
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik Last edited by LostAngeles; 28th September 2009 at 05:10 PM.

28th September 2009, 05:20 PM	#29
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,559	Originally Posted by Questioninggeller Even if the government purposely/accidently removed parts of the video does that change the other facts? Does that allow for a conspiracy? There are various conspiracies suggested. For example the govement knew that McVeigh was part of a larger group than admited but failed to investiage properly then covered up the fact that there had been anything pointing towarards anyone else in the first place. Quote: I wouldn't be surprised if the tapes were carelessly controlled, like with the missing Moon landing tapes. Preserving evidence and archiveing NASA stuff operate differently.
	Last edited by geni; 28th September 2009 at 05:22 PM.

28th September 2009, 05:53 PM	#30
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by geni There are various conspiracies suggested. For example the govement knew that McVeigh was part of a larger group than admited but failed to investiage properly then covered up the fact that there had been anything pointing towarards anyone else in the first place. Yeah? So tapes blanked (by accident or purpose) mean what? Originally Posted by geni Preserving evidence and archiveing NASA stuff operate differently. Agreed. My point was if a government agency can lose important footage like human's first steps on a world that isn't the Earth then maybe four fuzzy survelliance cameras from a decade ago may not be so well-taken care of by another government agency.

28th September 2009, 06:00 PM	#31
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,559	Originally Posted by Questioninggeller Yeah? So tapes blanked (by accident or purpose) mean what? No idea I've never looked at the theories in any detail. Quote: Agreed. My point was if a government agency can lose important footage like human's first steps on a world that isn't the Earth then maybe four fuzzy survelliance cameras from a decade ago may not be so well-taken care of by another government agency. The NASA issue appears to have been due to regular wipeing of tapes. Those charged with preserveing evidence shouldn't have that problem and by the time of the bombing were expected to preserve everything of significance.

28th September 2009, 06:52 PM	#32
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by geni The NASA issue appears to have been due to regular wipeing of tapes. Those charged with preserveing evidence shouldn't have that problem and by the time of the bombing were expected to preserve everything of significance. My point was simple. If NASA could make a "goof" and mess up important tapes (like the Moon landing!!!) then its not that far out to suggest the FBI could mess up four, what appears to be, minor survelliance tapes from 14 years ago. Law enforcement have been known to destroy evidence on accident for a variety of reasons. (The source is a conspiracy theorist who gave the media the tapes. We are assuming this copy is exactly what the government has right now.)

28th September 2009, 06:59 PM	#33
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by bokonon If they're putting in new tapes, it makes sense that this would be done at the beginning of the day. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they'd be changing tapes at 9:02 AM when the bomb went off. Surely you'd want to get all the people arriving for work on the security tape, and most work days in office buildings start at 8 rather than 9. Even if the day starts at 9, people will be arriving before that. They weren't government cameras? If so, the work day beginning at nine and the workers not actually beginning work until nine makes perfect sense to me. Originally Posted by bokonon I could understand one or even two, but four cameras in four buildings? The most reasonable explanation to me, with the limited information I have, is that the tapes have been edited. They were from four different buildings? Hmmm... I'd like to see the tapes (and hopefully timestamps) myself before I judge further. More info would be nice too.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

28th September 2009, 07:04 PM	#34
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,187	Quote: "There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said "The laws of chance predict coincidence. We would live in a very bizaare world if there were none" --John Allen Paulos That said it is interesting. I could come up with a lot of speculation. None of it having anything to do with the bombing. There are a lot of questions I would have before coming to any conclusion.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 28th September 2009 at 07:08 PM.

28th September 2009, 07:12 PM	#35
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,187	Originally Posted by bokonon The most reasonable explanation to me, with the limited information I have, is that the tapes have been edited. Meh~ This is what JREF is all about. Of course this thread really belongs in CT. If you want to draw conclusions based on limited knowledge that's fine but you are logic is to draw conclusions from ignorance "I can't explain it therefore the answer must be X".
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith