Whats your take on this?

Aramike · 05-20-09, 02:53 PM

I think Waco was a result of a gross mishandling by the Justice Department. I think they did indeed torch themselves but it was unneccessary.

I don't believe there was any real cover-up. The problem with large scale cover-ups is that they are damned-near impossible to perpetuate. Besides, if they were able to successfully do so, why then make it obvious that the government was incompetent? Why not just make it so the Feds come out smelling like roses?

As far as the evidence you're presenting, I'd like to see sources on some of it, to be honest. Conspiracy theorists often present "evidence" that is either taken out of context, spun, or simply non-existant. A great example to this is (going back to 9/11) the suggestion that non-commercial aircraft hit the towers due to windows not being visible in video or photographs taken of the planes approaching. This claim ignores the fact that distance and velocity would be too great for most cameras to be able to resolve the windows - oh, and the fact that pieces of the plane's fuselage were found ... windows and all.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

05-20-09, 02:53 PM	#19
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	I think Waco was a result of a gross mishandling by the Justice Department. I think they did indeed torch themselves but it was unneccessary. I don't believe there was any real cover-up. The problem with large scale cover-ups is that they are damned-near impossible to perpetuate. Besides, if they were able to successfully do so, why then make it obvious that the government was incompetent? Why not just make it so the Feds come out smelling like roses? As far as the evidence you're presenting, I'd like to see sources on some of it, to be honest. Conspiracy theorists often present "evidence" that is either taken out of context, spun, or simply non-existant. A great example to this is (going back to 9/11) the suggestion that non-commercial aircraft hit the towers due to windows not being visible in video or photographs taken of the planes approaching. This claim ignores the fact that distance and velocity would be too great for most cameras to be able to resolve the windows - oh, and the fact that pieces of the plane's fuselage were found ... windows and all.