Secret Service: No Oklahoma City bombing tape exists

AP ^ | 4-19-04 | AP

[Joe Hadenuf]

Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. — There's a log describing a tape - but no tape itself.

A Secret Service agent has testified that an agency document written shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing described security video footage and witness testimony - suggesting Timothy McVeigh may have had some help.

The log describes footage showing the federal building explosion, about three minutes after "suspects" exited the Ryder truck used in the blast.

But she says there's no evidence that the tape exists. The government has insisted McVeigh drove the truck alone, and that it had no tapes showing the bombing or the scene at the building before it.

Several people involved with the case say they've never seen footage described in the log.

The agent who testified today at bombing conspirator Terry Nichols' trial says the log was an internal document used to keep track of agents' activities during the bombing investigation.

She said the reports in it may have been based on speculation - and that the Secret Service doesn't vouch for its reliability.

[A Jovial Cad]

Oh, you know *exactly* what I'm talking about: let's not be coy. The entire silly pose of how "interesting" this and that minor unaccounted-for cobweb of the case is in *one* person's testimony (no context of the entire testimony is provided, of course), and the following speculations that follow right down the thread, all tinfoil-laden.
If you really want to claim that there is more "going on" than we know about in the case, you should openly state so, and not flee into such decoy epistles such as *what ever could you be referring to, sir?* like a Scarlett O'Hara wanna-be suffering the vapors the second you're called on it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Oh, enough. Save for my time in the service, I've lived in Oklahoma all of my life, and I can tell you such tinfoil-hat speculations as you've hinted at in this post don't wash here.

Which tinfoil speculation are you referring to? If you could be specific. Are you referring to my comment about the log entry of an existing video tape by a government official?

Oh, you know *exactly* what I'm talking about: let's not be coy. The entire silly pose of how "interesting" this and that minor unaccounted-for cobweb of the case is in *one* person's testimony (no context of the entire testimony is provided, of course), and the following speculations that follow right down the thread, all tinfoil-laden.

Huh?

And what does the fact that you lived in Oklahoma all your life have to do with this apparently new development in this case? Who is really wearing the tin foil here?

If you really want to claim that there is more "going on" than we know about in the case, you should openly state so, and not flee into such decoy epistles such as *what ever could you be referring to, sir?* like a Scarlett O'Hara wanna-be suffering the vapors the second you're called on it

Decoy? Scarlett O'Hara? Yeowza! A little dramatic there aren't you?

Did you previously know of this Secret Service log? Did you already conduct your own private investigation into this matter? If so, why did the SS officer document this in his log?

[oolatec]

Maybe Richard Clarke wrote in that log that there was a video... hehe

[gatex]

"There's nothing here, folks--move along now..."

Tell us why the FBI lied about using pyrotechnic flares at Waco --- until the Texas Rangers found evidence that the FBI had fired pyrotechnic flares----

[Joe Hadenuf]

And since you stated that you've lived in Oklahoma all your life and all this is tin foil, I'm curious, could you tell me how detailed and in depth the description of the video the Secret Service agent revealed in his log? I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

The log *describes* footage showing the federal building explosion, about three minutes after "suspects" exited the Ryder truck used in the blast.

[A Jovial Cad]

Given the company you're keeping in this thread, I would "hazard" that you have an active imagination, and quite a deal of idle time, given the clear evidence regarding April 19th on the table to date. I would suggest a new hobby. I find Chess diverting, but am also partial to cards (Spades & Hearts are two particular favorites), and the board game Risk. I would recommend any of those as enjoyable diversions.
But there is simply not any "OKC bombing conspiracy," plain and simple, Period. End-of-sentence.

[gatex]

"...shadowy mutterings about the so-called hidden "co-conspirators"..."

Tell us why the U.S. Marshalls at Ruby Ridge asked for immunity in court for---
---making a false report
---lying to the Grand Jury
---lying to the Court.

[A Jovial Cad]

Tell you what? Waco? This has nothing to do with that fiasco--get your fanaticisms straight before you post to me. Here's a little primer for you: WE-ARE-TALKING-ABOUT-THE-OKC-BOMBING-IN-1995-NOT-WACO.
Was that slow and clear enough for you? Was my English simple enough? Let me know if it wasn't, thanks. I can slow way down, to the third-grade level of talking, in that event.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I think you ought to stick to you're board games as you're gunna blow a gasket. Best get back to those diversions you speak of.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Well, that settles that /sarcasm

[Joe Hadenuf]

The log describes footage showing the federal building explosion, about three minutes after "suspects" exited the Ryder truck used in the blast.

But she says there's no evidence that the tape exists.

Well, that settles that

LOL!

[A Jovial Cad]

"And since you stated that you've lived in Oklahoma all your life and all this is tin foil, I'm curious, could you tell me how detailed and in depth the description of the video the Secret Service agent revealed in his log? I'd appreciate it. Thanks."

First, I didn't "state" anything: I *said* it. At least follow the most pedestrian rules of the English language if you wish to communicate with me, please.
Second, I'm not interested in the least by your "curiosity" about, well, really, anything regarding this matter. You are obviously caught up in a *007 James Bond*-type fantasy regarding this topic, wherein only you and your hardy, noble band of followers are relentlessly pursuing some vague "truth" about this event to the end.
Like many convinced conspiracy fanatics you will find constant dead-ends in this pursuit of some vague "truth" about the matter--and it will always be just out of your verifiable reach. The sad truth all the while will be that there was no "conspiracy", of course; that the proved facts on hand will always, even years down the road, be the currently accepted version of events. But you'll keep trying; keep muttering about dark events in some shadowy never-never-land of your own creation; keep flaming posts from people who point out your obvious intellectual deficiencies regarding the topic; and so on.
Which is all fine, of course. This is a free country, after all, even for the congenitally silly. But just don't act outraged or puzzled when someone calls you on your obsessive silliness from time to time: it's a free country for those of us who aren't obsessed with neurotic fictions about historical events, too.

[weegee]

Here's a little primer for you: WE-ARE-TALKING-ABOUT-THE-OKC-BOMBING-IN-1995-NOT-WACO.

Hmmm. The conventional explanation is that Timothy McVeigh bombed the OKC building because of details of the Waco case that struck him as being abuse. The truth of that abuse does not in any way justify his actions, that is just what we as Americans have been told was his motivation (and his grievance had merit).

If the FBI and Reno lied in the Waco case, what makes you think they didn't put their finger on the scale of justice in this case too?

Some people think that Bill Clinton only ever lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Some of us know better. We may never know every thing that he lied about but we are sure of some of his untruths.

The question comes down to "who do you trust"? I do not doubt Timothy McVeigh's involvement in the bombing. I do not doubt Terry Nichols' involvement. There is evidence to suggest more participants (including a 10 year old plan that target the building).

Also it is certainly odd that some Waco evidence was "lost" as a result of the OKC bombing. If he was outraged about Waco, he certainly forever sealed the door on that investigation. If he was targeting certain federal officials, he botched that too since they were reportedly out of the office that day. Not saying that he had other people in mind but if he wants revenge against unscrupulous people, you'd think that he would keep an eye out for them before striking.

[antiantiamericans]

http://wid.ap.org/documents/okc/okcdoc2.pdf

"A witness to the explosion named Grossman claimed to have seen a pale yellow Mercury car with a Ryder truck behind it pulling up to the Federal Building. Mr. Grossman further claimed to have seen a woman on the corner waving to the truck. ATSAIC McNally noted that this fact is significant due to the fact that the security video shows the Ryder truck pulling up to the Federal Building and then pausing (7-10 seconds) before resuming into a slot in front of the building. It is speculated that the woman was signaling the truck when a slot became vacant."


First, this is interesting because the person noting the significance is the Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge(ATSAIC). If there was a tape, he should know.

But even better (for me, anyways :) ), is that the tape is referred to as "the security video". not "A" security video, not "some" video, but "the security video". It seems obvious that the writer expects the readers to be familiar with the existence of the video.




"Security video tapes from the area show the truck detonation 3 minutes and 6 seconds after the suspects exited the truck"

"Security video tapes"?

[B4Ranch]

A Jovial Cad. I'm interested in your thoughts about Flight 800.

[B4Ranch]

The tape probably shows clear evidence of explosives inside the building.

[iopscusa]

Maybe a better moniker would be
"An Overly-Defensive CAD".....jeez this guy has some kind of cobb problem! Must of had a Blue Monday.

[TomGuy]

Interesting from an old (2002) article:

Is the Regency Tower's videotape the only record of scenes from the morning of the bombing? The judge who presided over the FOIA case says no. After looking over a confidential index of the surveillance videotapes in federal custody, U.S. District Judge Wayne Alley ruled: "The FBI's list of responsive material from its Oklahoma City Field Office includes numerous other tapes dated April 19, 1995, from several sources."


In July 2001, in the FOIA lawsuit filed by an Oklahoma journalist, the Justice Department reluctantly conceded the existence of 23 videotapes. The tapes photographed the area around the Murrah Federal Building between April 15, 1995, and 9:02 a.m. April 19, when the bomb went off.


The above quote comes from this FR post in 2002:

Time to unseal videotapes of Murrah Federal Building -- (emphasis added)
			Posted by TXnMA On 11/16/2002 4:47:52 AM PST with 48 comments The indianapolis Star Online (indystar.com) ^ | 2002/11/16 | James Patterson James Patterson Time to unseal videotapes of Murrah Federal Building (emphasis added) November 16, 2002 Though time is running out on his chairmanship of the Government Reform Committee, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., continues to push for copies of surveillance videotapes and still photos taken on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing.

[mewzilla]

Doesn't exist any longer...

[nuconvert]

"But she says there's no evidence that the tape exists"

At least, not any more...........