Talk:Timothy McVeigh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Footnote 23

Pardon me, but there are certain turns of phrases that seem inapporpriate to an encyclopedia entry and overly informalize the note. To wit: "Well, if that's the standard....." and "The truth is...."

When people say, "The truth is..." my ears perk up and my brain goes into skeptic mode, as Socrates taught me. There are many Forms of Truth, as his student Plato well knew.

As far as "standards" go, well, take your pick. Ah....the old relative v absolute dialectic. Some fun. Luciusmichael 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luciusmichael (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

This relates to something I wish to address.Its footnotes 70 and 71.I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face. You just did something you're trying to say should be illegal for medical personnel.[70] McVeigh dropped his remaining appeals, giving no reason for doing so.[71] All I ask is does mcvieghs quote not answer something that footnote 71 tries to leave as a mystery?If the man is resigned to die I have the feeling that explains his lack of appeals.I feel as though the footnote for 71 should stay[as it remains important that he stopped asking for reviews] but, it should be noted it is clear why the appeals stopped.We must be careful as the eyes and ears of many that things flow together and make sense.Wikimakesmart (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Party Affiliation

On April 26th, the biography section of this article was changed to state that McVeigh was a "registered member of the Democrat Party." Previously it had claimed him to be a Republican. At the bottom of the CNN article here, he is stated to have been a registered Republican. Additionally, a reference to that CNN article was removed. I recommend that these changes be reverted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.21.126.124 (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Jose Padilla

The section of Jose Padilla needs a reference. Did they live in Planation, Florida the same year? Or is the possible meeting mere speculation? McVeigh is bad enough and doesn't need a claim to have met Padilla or Hitler in order to be a criminal. JonnyLate 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh was a registered REPUBLICAN. re: March 2001, CNN article:

Although both Arizona and Michigan are host to militant anti-tax, anti-government, survivalist and racist groups, there is no evidence that he ever belonged to any extremist groups. He advertised to sell a weapon in what is described as a virulently anti-Semitic publication. After renting a Ryder truck that has been linked to the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh telephoned a religious community that preaches white supremacy, but no one there can remember knowing him or talking to him. His only known affiliations are as a registered Republican in his New York days, and as a member of the National Rifle Association while he was in the Army.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJKruger (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

homosexual?

It has been suggested that Timothy McVeigh was a homosexual. This should be put in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.206.99 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 July 2007

Do you have a source for that? Sounds like speculation to me, which doesn't belong in an article. Many things have been suggested about many people, but without solid reliable sources, it shouldn't be put in their articles. If you can find a good source, though, feel free to add it. --clpo13 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In an interview with Authors Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck Timothy McVeigh admitted to being Agnostic (not Christian) he did not believe there was a God but if, when he gets to the other side he finds something he will "adapt, improvise, and overcome." Michel and Herbeck are authors of "American Terrorists: Timoghy McVeigh"

This article comes off sounding like if only he'd found a girl (or guy?), McVeigh wouldn't have become a mass murderer - this sounds rather silly. maybe being a nutcase was the reason he was having trouble finding one (or the other?) in the first place. Jmdeur (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

McVeigh video

Should there be mention of the supposed McVeigh video shot in a Military Camp in North Dakota during 1993 after it was mentioned he was honorably discharged and supposedly being corrupted by right-wing lunatics? www.prisonplanetcom/articles/december2006/181206mcveighvideo.htm Link]. --BlueGlowGuardian 16:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is also mentioned here Talk:Timothy_McVeigh/Archive_1#Infowars_video_link. It still hasn't been addressed. It should be mentioned in the context of conspiracy theories.

Also see 'www.infowarscom/articles/us/okc_bombing_mcveigh_video_destroys_okc_official_story.htm McVeigh Video Destroys OKC Bombing Official Story]' by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, December 18, 2006 and more www.infowarscom/articles/us/okc_bombing_tim_mcveigh_on_august_3_1993.htm here].

Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage and don't miss General Ben Partin (ret.), explosives expert. If you're looking for video to support the official version it was never released by the Federal government. Interesting commentary [1][2]. 207.119.116.241 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is McVeigh not a terrorist???

He was a TRUE AMERICAN HERO and then the HOMELESS VETERAN was framed by the crooked government. The article says McVeigh is a terrorist. I agree. However, Mir Aimal Kasi did not have any ties to any organization (like McVeigh) and he was determined not to be a terrorist as a result. Furthermore, the mass murder at the access road to the CIA was determined not to be a terrorist act because of this.

Shouldn't we call the 1993 CIA shootings an act of terrorism, like McVeigh? Or say that McVeigh merely committed mass murder and not terrorism? Mrs.EasterBunny 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He WAS a TERRORIST. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrorists have a political agenda to proclaim when they kill people. You don't have to be part of an organization. He had anti-US Government sentiments and wanted to kill people in protest of the US handling in Waco, Texas. McVeigh is a terrorist as well as a mass murderer. Azn Clayjar (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

American patriot and freedom fighter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.71 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is he being called a terrorist? Personally I'd say he is, but most other articles avoid the term. Why is there an exception for Mcveigh?Ticklemygrits (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with calling him a terrorist; here is the definition of domestic terrorism under the US Code:[1]

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Thus, being a terrorist could be a good thing, if you are trying to achieve good objectives (i.e. restoration of freedom) that cannot be accomplished through the political system due to a tyrannical majority (note that nazism and many other tyrannies were implemented through democratic processes, and had to be overturned by force). It is no different than an act of war, really, under those circumstances. See [2] However, if we want to be really unbiased, we might simply call him a "bomber" or something. EVCM (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

calling him a terrorist is POV (one man terrorist is a nother man's freedom fighter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.68 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

McVeigh was a non-state actor who committed acts of violence deliberately directed at civilians. He was a terrorist, whatever your preposterous POVFrFintonStack (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think the people of Gaza view Hamaas as terrorists? Or how about this, the underground resitance movements of World War II. Were they terrorists? Or how about the 'sons of liberty', who threw a whole ship load of the King's tea into Boston Harbor. Were they terrorist? How about evey single man who signed the Declaration of Independence? - Blindmage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.96.138 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If McVeigh is considered a terrorist, shouldn't the US government and the FBI also be considered terrorists for their attack and mass murder in Waco? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.206.187 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that any time a non-Muslim is up for designation as a terrorist there is such an outcry, but any Muslim who kills a bunch of people is easily designated as a terrorist? McVeigh blew up a building with people in them. Christ, is there any other succinct way to describe the guy?Shabeki (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Birth Place

In the short bio section on the right Timothy McVeigh is said to have been born in Pendleton, NY, but in the text it says he was born in Lockport and "grew up" in Pendleton. I didn't want to change it until someone can find out which one is correct. (BlueLily91 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

I believe this is because source 3 is unreliable. The source even says that it is not authoritative and should be considered a first draft. To help with the confusion, he was born in Lockport Hospital, but lived in Pendleton (not Pemelton as the source indicates). Pendleton does not have a hospital so many from that area use nearby Lockport Hospital.Jojuko (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence of "Survivalist" categorization

I removed:

"McVeigh was considered by many as someone with a long background in the survivalist movement."

Who thought this and what is the evidence? There was a request for citation for 3 months sitting there and no one responded. McVeigh was an agnostic, socialist, with a hatred for the U.S. govt. much like the Weathermen in the 1960's. Jtpaladin (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

McVeigh was a rampantly, viroulently, anti-socialist libertarian. He may have been an agnostic with a hatred for the US government, but the above suggestion that he was a socialist is a precise inversion of reality. But hey, who ever let evident reality get in the way of a good rant against the reds (i.e. anyone whose opinions we don't like), huh?FrFintonStack (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds proper to remove an Un-cited reference to him being in the Survivalist ranks, Just because the subject & the other group both read the same literature Doesn't make them the same thing, so thats ok until better citations. But calling McVeigh a "Socialist" Is - well, Just dumb. He was a former Republican who then moved to extreme libertarianism, with many citations. (In fact he was also a 'Good' U.S. Soldier & was awarded the Bronze Star) It's just the way it went. I will assume good faith & the heat of the moment - AND that the user Didn't read the whole entry. ---mbd---71.6.81.62 (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Readability

I have made some changes to the article to improve readability. It is not my intention to aggravate the families of the victims in any way. Please feel free to approach me about my edits if this is the case. The changes include:

1. Addition of "federally" indicted, to explain why he was only charged with 8 murders.
2. Reduction of run on sentences such as one regarding Rebecca Anderson's death.
3. Changing fachist to fascist, including a link to fascism.
4. Minor grammar fixes.
5. Sentence arrangements conducive to easy reading.

I encourage discussion on edits I have made, and edits you have made to improve readability, below. Thank you.

BETA 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Prison writings

The section on his arrest, sentencing, etc. opens with information regarding his prison writings, particularly the deaths of both Iraqi and American civilians. Why is this information placed here, rather than somewhere more chronologically and topically appropriate? It's placement here makes it feel less encyclopedic and more like the lead-in to a biography chapter, or perhaps a rumination on his motivations. 24.3.216.99 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AmericanTerroristBook.jpg

Image:AmericanTerroristBook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the evidence that McVeigh couldn't do it?

There is a strong evidence that McVeigh didn't blow up the building. Even if he wanted to, the laws of physics wouldn't allow him. The famous report of Brigadier General Partin (USAF, Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, ret.) makes it clear. Unless of course there was a divine intervention involved in the case, and the laws of physics have been suspended for a while. But is it right to execute a person only on a suspicion (even a very stong one) of divine intervention? And even if many people think that it is right (and especially then) shouldn't it be reported in a objective description of the case which I hope is the purpose of Wikipedia? Jim (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are days of magic at large in the USA the past few years. Farm fertilizer that becomes superbombs, kerosene that melts steel and collapses huge buildings ( heck even one across the street - ie an innocent bystanding building no less ) - but we still believe because we are patriot Ameericanns. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Of course anyone who can read knows it is all BS but then what can be done with freedom, liberty, truth and only a popgun.

When you include "[f]arm fertilizer that becomes superbombs" in the past few years, are you talking back to 1985, when the same compound was used by the military in the Minor Scale test that was the largest human-made non-nuclear explosion ever? Or back to 1947, when the farm fertilizer unmixed with diesel killed 581 in the Texas City Disaster? I guess the Oppau explosion in 1921 was in Germany, so Germany got its own days of magic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't have to resist magic with a popgun (or any other gun). In a democracy it might be enough to use the freedom of speech. Even if one is a patriot American who can read he might have never heard of Genaral Partin's evidence that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level and so he might think that the building was blown up by McVeigh. Luckily General Partin's report is a matter of congrssional record and therefore documented well enough to be placed in wikipedia. Jim (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It was and is listed; see the section labeled Conspiracy Theories. WP:NPOV means we don't put emphasis on fringe viewpoints, no matter what the truth of the matter is. So long as the mainstream belief is that Timothy McVeigh's bomb was the cause of the building falling, that is what we report.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(In other words, if 10,000 people say 2 + 2 = 26 and one person say it equals 4 the 10,000 win; INSANE!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.147.169 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And how do you decide what is the mainstream belief? If experts believe that McVeigh didn't blow the building and it is proven by documents it should be reported by wikipedia even if it is not true (since wikipedia is not to write the truth but only the documented expert opinion). No? Jim (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We decide what the mainstream belief is by simple observation. The concise online Encyclopedia Brittanica article on the Oklahoma City bombing states as uncontested fact that the bombing was caused by a truck bomb. Time Magazine, when describing his execution, does not mention any doubt that he was guilty, no dispute that he was guilty. Even his attorneys, when fighting for his life, argued there could be others, not that he was not guilty.[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,129507,00.html You don't have experts who believe that McVeigh didn't blow up the building; you have an expert. Even then, it is reported, right where I said it was.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that wikipedia should support the execution of an innocent person by removing a documented information about the expert opinion about his innocence? Jim (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It didn't remove anything; it's still there under conspiracy theories. McVeigh is not innocent; he confessed and refused his last appeals. Those are the acts of a guilty man. Even if the building was blown from within, he still drove the truck loaded with explosives there, which makes him guilty of conspiracy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess there really is a conspiracy theory about everything. At any rate, as Prosfilaes said, the mainstream view is what has the biggest focus in an article. Fringe views have their own sections (or articles, in the case of 9/11). --clpo13_(talk) 05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is something that popular culture identifies as a folklore similar to urban legend. It is dismissed as improbable by the majority. By labeling the documented facts as a "conspiracy theory" or "fringe views" wikipedia is shielding the majority of readers from the objective truth. It doesn't have to do it, despite that it is not obliged to write the truth if mainstream chooses to believe in fiction. Of course, those who can think won't be shielded from the truth, they will be just kept as minority. Which in democracy is enough not to change the status quo.

In my opinion it shouldn't be wikipedia's purpose since except reporting on mainstream prejudices, as it clams it's its only purpose ("no matter what the truth of the matter is" --Prosfilaes) it shouldn't give up its educational role. It is rather sad when a high school student turns to wikipedia for information and she is lied to even when wikipedia is aware of the truth but the truth happens not to be a prejudice held by the majority. Jim (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, V and OR. The one major point of this is because mainstream is easier to discuss and verify than objective truth.

Frankly, I find this very conspiracy theory. One person took some looks at the collapsed building and comes to a conclusion that it would have taken internal explosions. One person doing an visual uncomputer-aided examination is a bit sketchy, but is not inherently invalid, at least when taken as one person's opinion. The conclusion that McVeigh was innocent, however, is an absurd extrapolation; you have to explain his behavior and all the evidence raised against him, like proof that he rented the truck and bought the bomb-making supplies (and again never offered an explanation). That's unsupported by your sources, and since it involves a conspiracy, is a conspiracy theory. Even accepting your source as gospel truth, all we can conclude is that party or parties unknown laid the explosives in the building, which doesn't make McVeigh innocent.

You ranted above about objective truth instead of dealing with the points I made about why I see your theory as a little off in the truth department; that's not a way to convince people that don't already see your way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Prosfilaes: My purpose was not to convince you about anything just to turn your attention to the facts, and to try with your help to understand them myself. In my opinion the facts point to different people, who did rather losy job, but who might have made this job lousy on purpose. To scare the minority who can think without alarming the majority who can't. In this sense it might have been a terrorist act and the purpose might have been to prompt Congress to suspend the democracy. McVeigh might have been an innocent bystander at the wrong place at the wrong time, thinking even that it was him who blew up the building (while according to General Partin he couldn't be). The fact that govenment didn't want to test the case against the use of dynamite supports General's conclusions.

McVeigh was accused and executed for something he couldn't physically do. It is true that it is only according to General Partin's data, but relying on his data is probably much safer than relaying on opinions of laymen. If you think otherwise you would have to point to an error in the data.

You might recall that McVeigh's was the fate of millions of witches. Many of them made impression that they did what they were accused of, many cofessed that they did, and many of them even believed themselves that they did. That's why in civilized societies it is the job of a prosecutor to prove the guilt regadless of the confession of the accused. And that's why it is important to present all the relavant facts and not under a label of "consiracy theory". Of course to place them under "conspiracy theory" is better then to remove them alltogether as some editors do, when it comes to exposing sillyness of their pet theories (e.g. promoting Newton's theory over Einsteins, which for some reason is allowed). Jim (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have one fact; that a man who has degrees in chemical engineering, aeronautical engineering, and who is in the process of getting a degree in operations research is holding an opinion about a question of civil engineering, a field in which he is unqualified. Contrary to your insinuations, his opinion is going against the opinion of more qualified engineers employed by the FBI.

Furthermore, and more relevant to this article, General Partin's report says "Although the truck bomb had insufficient power to destroy columns, the bomb was clearly responsible for ripping out some floors at the second and third floor levels." Which means that according to your source, McVeigh is guilty as sin. He was part of a conspiracy to blow up the building that killed a lot of people and is therefore guilty of murder. I will delete any claim of McVeigh's innocence added to this article unless we actually have a WP:RS that claims that McVeigh is innocent, which Partin's report does not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"[...]the truck bomb [...] was clearly responsible for ripping out some floors at the second and third floor levels" [General Benton K. Partin].

Prosfilaes: "Which means that according to [Partin], McVeigh is guilty as sin." [...] "I will delete any claim of McVeigh's innocence added to this article unless we actually have a WP:RS that claims that McVeigh is innocent, [...]"

Jim: Your thesis (correct me if I'm wrong) hangs on an assumption that McVeigh blew up the truck. It hasn't been proved beyond any reasonable doubt though. Therefore with a different choice of jourors (e.g. ones who understood their duties as jurors, duties that I learned when I was a juror in a murder case myself) there wouldn't be even a wikipedia article about McVeigh (atually one juror in McVeigh case understood his duties but he was fired by the judge after he expressed his doubts in a letter to the judge).

If you demand a proof of McVeigh's innocence, which is impossible for epistemological reasons, then we can't discuss McVeigh's case among ourselves, since when it comes to an opinion that you don't share, your inclusionism changes into deletionism. As is the case with many other inclusionists in wikipedia. E.g. those who prefer Newton gravitation over Einstein's. And I expect that you are also an deletionist when it comes to Einstein. A non believer like myself, so he probably wouldn't believe in McVeigh guilt neither. Jim (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't demand proof; I demand, as per Wikipedia standards, a reliable source. Every reliable source I seen declares him guilty, and that was the verdict of a court of law. That you don't agree with the jury--which, by the way, did not have a juror dismissed; that was the grand jury--does not acceptability to Wikipedia make.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable source" according to whom? I consider Einstein a reliable source since I undrstand his theory and what is behind it. The contemporary cosmologists don't consider Einstein a reliable source and insist that contrary to Einstein's physics the energy can be created out of nothing. They are also supported by the Pope (how otherwise the universe could be created?). I don't believe them until I see a proof (which they are yet to produce). So I'm in minority. I may be in minority also regarding McVeigh. And wikipedia editors are just representing the majority opinion. Which is OK as long as one doesn't take it too seriously (one doesn't take it for the truth). And I don't know anyone who does, so no real harm seems to be done. Except for fooling young people who look to wikipedia for knowledge.

You're right about Hoppy Heidelberg. He was dismissed from the grand jury. Thanks for reminding me and sorry for not remembering all the details of the case. I'm trying just to remember the key issues. Like selection of people on the basis of their opinions about the case. Jim (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikpedia is plain and simply a big sack of dog balls when it comes to history, politics, economics, social issues. It's good as a tv guide, but to call itself an encyclopedia is a sick joke. It a website that gets put on the parental blocker at my house. I wouldn't want most adults to seek information here, let alone children58.110.118.29 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the evidence presented by David Paul Hammer and Jeffery William Paul in the book, "Secrets worth dying for"? It meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS.

What about the NPR article and show about attorney Jesse Trentadue and the death of his brother and how it relates to McVeigh?

Jesse’s brother Kenny Trentadue was murdered, or rather, “suicided” in a federal penitentiary under alarmingly mysterious circumstances, after he was mistaken for Richard Guthrie, a member of the Aryan Republican Army and Midwest Bank Robbers, whose exact role in the Oklahoma City bombing is still fully unknown. On September 25, 2008 Trentadue won a ruling, which he had sought for over a year and a half to depose, on video, federal inmates David Paul Hammer and Terry Nichols. Nichols, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his still unknown role in the bombing, says he is ready to tell all. Yet, the DOJ, FBI and BOP have made this task almost impossible, claiming that such as deposition would be detrimental to prison security.

Hammer, who is currently on Death Row in Terre Haute, Indiana, was housed in a cell next to the elusive and mysterious Timothy McVeigh for the last couple years of McVeigh’s life. Hammer, who wrote the book Secrets Worth Dying For, was the recipient of some of McVeigh’s “final” confessions. These include his corroborated claims of being an agent of the government during the planning and execution of the bombing. Secrets Worth Dying for is one of the most chilling books on OKC and one which is worth reading for anyone with an interest in this case.

On October 10, 2008, Trentadue, an unbelievably brave man, filed a complaint with the US district court of Utah, against the CIA, claiming that since December of 2006, the CIA has continuously withheld information which they were compelled by law, via the FOIA, to release to Trentadue. Information which was requested but which has to this date, been withheld concern the CIA’s investigation and/or involvement in OKC, information regarding German National Andreas Strassmier’s role as an informant/ agent in the bombing, and the nature of his exact relationship with McVeigh and the Aryan Republican Army/ Midwest bank robbers. The difficulty in attaining this protected information was also previously encountered by several others, including McVeigh and Nichols own defense attorneys. Yet, Trentadue is not trying to defend these men or their actions. He is trying to find out the truth of his brothers gruesome murder. Trentadue has demanded in his filing that all information concerning “all investigations into the CIA’s role, involvement with or connection to the Murrah Building Bombing whether through employees, informants, operatives or other means” be turned over ASAP. He also has been fighting to obtain similar records from the FBI, and ATF. His last letter, written to officials at the CIA, written March 2008 concluded with the line “I hope there will be no need for me to sue in order to obtain these records.” This should be interesting, to say the least.

Finally, on October 12, 2008 Trentadue filed another Freedom of Information Act to obtain records from the FBI. He has now requested copies of all surveillance video tapes which are related to OKC, including all surveillance tapes from in and around the Murrah building from the dates of April 15- April 19, which include the interior and exterior cameras of the Regency Apartments, located across from the Murrah, security camera on the west side of the Murrah and one on the south of the Journal Records building. (Anyone having 9/11 Pentagon déjà vous?) Included in these OKC surveillance video tapes is one which is mentioned in a Secret Service memo. It is stated in this memo that one of these videos contained:security video tapes from the area [that] show the [Ryder] truck detonation 3 minutes and 6 seconds after the SUSPECTS exited the truck.” Unless the Secret Service is ill informed on the use of grammar, the word SUSPECTS clearly implies a massive cover-up or worse. Trentadue is also requesting all reports which reference the FBI’s seizure of these tapes and the chain of possession with which they were handled in their eventual disappearance from the FBI’s (and others) files. Furthermore, Trentadue is asking for all video tape and records which can illuminate the truck, known to be at the site of the bombing, which was traveling behind McVeigh when he was arrested by Trooper Charlie Hangar in Perry, Oklahoma, an hour after the blast. Hangar had dashboard video equipment in his patrol car, but somehow this was mysteriously turned off until after Hangar had actually arrested McVeigh.IckeDavid (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

All this stuff about McVeigh not doing it is just goofy talk. Before his execution he complained that he wished his bomb had been more efficient- to take down the whole structure! He even said "Against all those conspiracy theorists who will talk about this..." & He was RIGHT! There was an 8 FOOT DEEP crater Where the truck was sitting- & a circular Pie -bite chunk missing from the building radiating outward from where the blast originated. It wasn't some mythical "four demolition charges " that thoroughly damaged around 300 surrounding buildings & blew out windows in a quarter mile radius... The truck contained some of the same material that a stick of Dynamite contains... Only they had mixed up "7,000 POUNDS" of the stuff!! sitting in a container roughly less than 20x8x8 Feet. I would not want to be anywhere within TEN city blocks of a bomb like that. The rear axle of the truck smashed into the pavement- rebounded- & then landed - what- around 3 or 4 blocks away? I've watched films of smaller amounts of dynamite destroy whole mountain sides... A freestanding building like this is nothing when you use 7,000 pounds of "KaBOOM" against . I mean- C'Mon. Get real. ---mbd---71.6.81.62 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems little doubt McVeigh was at the scene of the bombing and took an active part in this horendoius atrocity. However there is compelling witness reconstruction of events immeidiately before the Bombing to suggest the Bomb exploded premeturely (probably while it was being 'set' (i.e. all wires connected). Johnwrd (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Necessity defense

I thought that McVeigh ended up not using the necessity defense? See [3], [4], [5] Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Islamist" and Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories

Needs to be changed in this title. "Islamist" is a positive denotation and connotation of Islam and the revival of Islamic culture and values. The problem is, in this article, the word "Islamist" is being used wrongly and is being associated with "Fundamental" or "Extremist" Islam. There should be a distinction between a cultural revival and terrorist threats -- these are two very different ideas trying to be lumped together and is quite misleading, please come up with a more definitive word. Straightliner (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Overlap between this article and Oklahoma City Bombing

What material should go in this article, and what material should go in Oklahoma City Bombing? I suppose the latter should include most of the details of methodology? What about the arrest, trial, etc.? Obviously we want to avoid excessive overlap. EVCM (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with categorization

I disagree with this diff; for one thing, we do not need both the "terrorists" category and the category for the more specific type of terrorist; the latter will suffice. Second, I don't think it's appropriate to call him a mass murderer, since he was basically a soldier trying to win a war, much like Paul Tibbets, John Brown, etc. EVCM (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean, like an Islamic soldier? Santamoly (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarian category?

Should we add him to Category:Utilitarians? I notice that he said, "I have great respect for human life. My decision to take human life at the Murrah Building – I did not do it for personal gain. I ease my mind in that...I did it for the larger good." That seems consistent with utilitarian ideology and possibly even consequentalist libertarianism. What do you think? EVCM (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian terrorist

I am going to reclassify him from right-wing terrorist to libertarian terrorist. He was pro-choice and held other views more closely associated with libertarianism than conservatism; furthermore, he called himself a libertarian, voted Libertarian, read "Atlas Shrugged," etc. EVCM (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

not a terrorist but a freedom fighter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.68 (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

EVCM was banned as a sockpuppet. He was promoting all this libertarian terrorism nonsense and if what he wrote here was not reverted, I'll do it. Carol Moore 16:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Go ahead! Joepnl (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If he self-identified as a libertarian, and his beliefs meet that definition, then, speaking as a libertarian, he would, in fact, be a libertarian terrorist.Mzmadmike (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he identified as a libertarian. Ilya Somin writes "extensive research in the Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw newspaper data bases finds no corroboration for this wikipedia claim, except for a 2001 Washington Post article (not available online, as far as I can tell) that quotes McVeigh as saying he was a libertarian in the context of expressing his position on vegetarianism. There is no corroboration for his supposedly having voted for Browne." The source cited for his libertarian affiliation is a LP press release which is no longer online. The source cited for his having voted for Browne is American Terrorist, but the book itself cites no source for the claim. So I have removed it. -- Zsero (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Islamist and Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories

Bearing in mind that this section now takes up almost 1/4 of the total article, I'd suggest it gives undue weight to fringe theories. I'd suggesting cutting it down to a paragraph at most.FrFintonStack (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is a conspiracy theory. 25-35% of it needs to be deleted. I suspect most of it was written by those trying to sell books concerning the case. I tried to be bold, but was overruled and I am on the verge of 3RR. 66.186.173.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

Unless I see a credible source of information (jaynadavis.com is not one), I am deleting all this conspiracy nonsense about McVeigh having ties to Ramzi Yousef or Iraqi agents. It is shameful that such conspiracy theories would find their way here.Shabeki (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Another line in the article stated that there is "considerable evidence" that McVeigh was working alongside Iraqi operatives when the only link to it is yet another theory by Jayna Davis. Is this a joke? I'm supposed to believe that Iraqi agents were working alongside Timothy McVeigh and yet none of this was mentioned during the run-up to the war in Iraq when such information would have proven useful even from a propagandistic advantage? I want more credible evidence instead of some conspiracy author.Shabeki (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Character assassination?

The first topic in the article states that, "He was picked on by bullies at school, and took refuge in a fantasy world in which he retaliated against them..." Obviously when reading this, the first thought to come into mind is, "Whoa, this guy was a real loser who couldn't come to terms with real life."

Now seriously, who here hasn't been picked on by bullies at least once in his life? Who here hasn't had thoughts about retaliating against his enemies? This is ridiculous. The above mentioned statement is simply a low blow aimed to hurt McVeigh's credibility. If you want to attack him, then do so by critiquing his actions against the government. You have testimony where he admits his bomb killed children of all things! Try using that instead of, "He was picked on at school." Perhaps next Wiki will suggest he had an electra complex spurred by penis envy which caused him to take out his rage on the government.

I suggest that character assassination attempts such as these be removed for the sake of relevance. It may or may not be true that he was picked on, but the context under which the fact is presented makes it appear McVeigh was a murderous psycho, not an individual who knew exactly what he was doing. 22:32 19 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.37.201 (talk)

I don't agree that these elements are intended as character assassination, but I do think that absent some more context, the relevance of their inclusion is unclear. The line about being picked on by bullies is something that comes from interviews with McVeigh himself, and it's something that he brought up to help explain his motivations. He repeatedly talked about his feelings of isolation, and that's a significant theme in the book "American Terrorist." But I think the anonymous poster is right, that simply saying "he was picked on by bullies" doesn't make much sense. Maybe this and some of the other sentences should be removed and put into a section called "motivations" or something like that, to make their relevance more clear. Anson2995 (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As entertaining as these conspiracy theories are, they have no part in this bio. It is not like there is one, but a Juggernaut of random thought as to what happened that goes against the core of the article. This random thought progression uses fringe articles as a basis for inclusion and makes up over 25% of the narrative (once reverted, again.) As profitable as it may be to write books about the murder of so many, these sources are baseless and are only there to sell copies. They do not add to the article and lend no credence. Conspiracy theories are fun, but not encyclopedic. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that this has been reverted back to include the books people want to sell, I ask - what is the real conspiracy? When we allow there to be a justifiable reason for his mass murder, "because the government did it, or the nazi's did it" - we end up killing the souls of the living, the survivors. How about we stick to the reality of the situation and leave the inane posits of the anti-governmental folks to the deep web. When this bio is read without the conspiracy fluff, it is a good article. When you add the all inclusive thoughts of Mr. I. M. Hawking (a book) it makes Wikipedia look like the National Enquirer. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of gun show information?

First, there is a definite bias displayed in this section. While certainly there are people of McVeigh's mindset at gun shows (Hey, it's a free country), they are certainly NOT the standard or even common. They're generally laughed at and sent packing.

Second, of what relevance is this commentary, or his position on firearms, when he used a bomb to commit his act? If he were a Boy Scout, it would not be deemed relevant, I hope. So what is the relevance of this other info? It feels to me like "Watch out for those gun nuts, they might blow off a bomb," which is demonstrably not true in general, and an unfair characterization.

As for "Anti-government sentiment," it all depends on which party is in power on which group of people are anti-government. Can we be specific as to WHICH government and policies he was anti?Mzmadmike (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bronze Star Commendation

Is there a copy of McVeeigh's Bronze Star commendation anywhere? Lowellt (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim McVeigh close to Christian Identity movement

p. 31: "Christian Identity ideas were most likely part of the thinking of Timothy McVeigh, the convicted bomber of the Oklahoma City federal building. McVeigh was exposed to Identity thinking through the militia culture with which he was associated and through his awareness of the Christian Identity encampment, Elohim City, on the Oklahoma-Arkansas border. Although there is no evidence that McVeigh was ever affiliated with the commune, phone calls he made to Elohim City in the months before the bombing are a matter of record, including one made two weeks before the bombing. McVeigh once received a citation for a minor traffic offense ten miles from the commune on the only access road to it. McVeigh also imbibed Identity ideas, or concepts similar to them, through such publications as The Patriot Report, an Arkansas- based Christian Identity newsletter that McVeigh received, and perhaps most of all from the book The Turner Diaries. According to McVeigh's friends, this was "his favorite book"; it was "his bible," some said. According to one gun collector who saw McVeigh frequently at gun shows, he hawked the book at bargain prices to anyone interested in buying it, and never let it leave his side. More to the point, McVeigh's telephone records indicate that despite his denials, he talked several times directly with the author of the novel [William Pierce], including a conversation shortly before the Oklahoma City attack."

Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence By Mark Juergensmeyer Edition: 3, illustrated, revised Published by University of California Press, 2003 ISBN 0520240111

Why the above is nowhere in the Tim McVeigh entry, I have no idea Haberstr (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Both Elohim City and the Turner Diaries *are* mentioned in the article. Anson2995 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The phrase 'Christian Identity' is not found in the article. That's amazing. Elohim City is not mentioned as connected to Christian Identity. No mention is made that McVeigh is associated with Christian Identity and received its newsletter. No mention that McVeigh talked directly to the author of The Turner Diaries, William Pierce.Haberstr (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article has been heavily slandered by people with an agenda to remove any trace of McVeigh's association with extremist christian groups. --70.181.91.238 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

McVeigh was more closely tied to Islamic terrorist groups like al Quaeda and Abu_Sayyah. He studied terrorist bomb-making with Iraqi agents, not "Christian" Aryans. Santamoly (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

his death

does anyone else find it creepy that he was executed exactly 3 months before 9/11? 75.107.254.11 (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in the least. Joepnl (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vegan stuff

Reading this section, is it really encyclopedic?

I'm certainly no vegan by any means (love red meat!), but the objectivity of this particular portion is rather questionable. A subject that is titled "Death" ("Execution") seems to unduly focus on the subject of McVeigh's dining preferences.

Anyone else kinda feel the same way?Vordabois (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(Removed)

Could you rephrase this in a coherent sentence or two? VanitasStation (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

'Post-military activities and lifestyle' reads like an apology for McVeigh

It should be much shorter, of course. It has a lot of excellent sources and informtion, but, wow, the tone.Haberstr (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The tone seems pretty neutral to me. Excellent sources and information are exactly what an encyclopedia should offer. Keep in mind that this is a biographical article on a person's life, and not just an article on a single event. While a person needs to be notable to have a biographical article in the first place, such an article is supposed to cover the person's entire life, and not just the notable parts of that life. Warren Dew (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I am removing the citations tag on the article, as practically every sentence in all but two sections has a citation, which is plenty. I am leaving the tag on the two sections that do seem to lack citations. If you want to put a citations tag back on the whole article, please mention your reasons here. Warren Dew (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I;ve added two citations to the information about his college days. IMHO, all controverisal BLP statements must have two reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Remorse

The article says "he did not express remorse for the deaths of the children", but in this interview, he at least says that he thought the bombing was a "tragic event", and that it was "terrible" that children died. I don't know whether or not he was sincere, but that was still an expression of remorse. 174.18.8.101 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammar problem

"McVeigh said he was often bullied at school, and that he took refuge in a fantasy world in which he retaliated against them." Against whom? Bullies (noun) haven't been mentioned. This could use rephrasing. 86.164.188.106 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Bombing

In an article found on the site of the New York Times there is an excerpt of an interview with McVeigh whilst he was in jail in which he states the following just before the bomb exploded;

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/arts/television/19mcveigh.html

“I lit the two-minute fuse at the stoplight, and I swear to God that was the longest stoplight I’ve ever sat at in my life.”

This is a direct contradiction to the Wikipedia article which alleges that the force of the bomb exploding supposedly lifted McVeigh off the ground as he was running away from the building after lighting the fuse. The article must be incorrect then based on McVeigh himself stating that he was sat in his car after directly after lighting the 2 minute fuse waiting for the stoplight to change.

Djemalts (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh? How does it contradict the article? Surely it supports the article - if he was waiting at a stoplight that would have eaten into his escape time, meaning he would be closer to the bomb when it went off, increasing the chances of him being "lifted off his feet". a_man_alone (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted a large edit

My reasons for this is that a large amount of referenced work was removed and scaled down to nothing. Some of the edits in one section almost looked like an unformatted list. The section that the edit summary said moved to, I just didn't see that, but maybe I missed something but I don't think so. I just felt that the new edits didn't improve the article at all. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Military service

In the "military career" section, the article says he went to sapper school "where he did go on to tab". What does that mean? Articles should be written in understandable English. Perhaps "tab" is jargon of some sort, but I'm not sure. Eastcote (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what it means either, so, I'm deleting it! Kenatipo (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It meant "earned the sapper tab" but according to his military records I obtained through an FOIA request, he never earned a sapper tab. If anyone wants me to post his decorations and awards and schools attended just ping my talk page. And yes, I understand this would be original research and not usable for references but it helps cut the crap in cases like this. Brad (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I recall the Sapper tab was not actually authorized until '94, him being in and out before then probably explains it. Also as I recall his signature was clearly written across a picture for his platoon when he went through, as he was the top of his class.

Need more Christanity Motivation Coverage

Not enough backgrounds in to McVeigh's religious motivations for his crimes is provided. There is enough extant research in to his religious motives that the brief and somewhat fragmented commentary about his theism isn't enough to accurately describe his primary motivations of what drove him. Fredric Rice (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• he is my hero!

There is plenty of material on his Islamic affiliations, including his association with Iraqi agents and Filipino Islamic terrorists. Check out Jayna Davis' detailed analysis of McVeigh's associations, in particular his friendships with Iraqi agent Hussain Al-Hussaini, his ties to the Abu-Sayya terrorist organization, and his close ties to Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 truck bombing of the World Trade Center. Although it appears that McVeigh could have been a Muslim convert, it has never been proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs) 08:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

re the person who wrote the hero comment - what a sad individual!

National Rifle Association

Under the political/religious views section they mention that he was a member of the NRA. I find that to be an assault on the NRA as some form of right wing conspiracy group, and has absolutely nothing to do with politics or religion. Could someone please remove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.89.42 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What? The fact that you associate the NRA with right wing conspiracies doesn't mean that it is one. It's a political lobbying organization. Thus, it goes under political views. 92.78.143.24 (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See Also section

Should Ronald Griesacker and David Wayne Hull be in the See Also section? I don't see any connection between them and McVeigh that warrants it.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article says that McVeigh received the sacrament of Annointing of the Sick before his execution. That can't be right: he wasn't sick. I assume he received Penance and Communion. Pdevine1 (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

McVeigh's "psychological profile" and claims of why he left Spec Forces

Briefly in the military life section it states that McVeigh was deemed by the special forces school to have a "very unsuitable psychological profile." The source listed is a book by a former Navy Seal, with no online link provided or page number from the book. This comment seems very contradictory to what a long msnbc documentary reported about McVeigh either in 2002 or 2003. It said that McVeigh was a top-notch soldier within his crew and that they even had to stop doing their 'soldier-of-the-day' competitions because McVeigh kept winning them all. In addition, it reported that McVeigh had served a long term in Iraq and was shipped off directly from there to Army Special Forces command for training (Rangers, I believe), and that by time he arrived for spec-ops training he was beat tired from his Iraq tour, causing him to suffer from pure physical exhaustion and eventually quit on his own. I don't know but how does a soldier go from being 'top-notch' in the field to 'unsuitable' in training? The msnbc implication - that he dropped out because of bad timing, making him tired with lack of rest - seems a lot more believable, whereas the 'very unsuitable' comment seems quite after-the-fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.78 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read about the situation, the FBI "leaked" the "very unsuitable psychological profile." to the press just after McVeigh's arrest. I'm not sure what the point was behind that mythical information leak. The book American Terrorist also covers that issue and it's essentially as you point out. McVeigh was put on a plane and given 72 hours to report to Fort Bragg for Special Forces training. Brad (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading about the Toulouse (France) shootings and that the culprit was raised in a single parent family, I remembered that the parents of Breivik (Norway shooter) had also gone their separate ways - so I checked McVeigh, not even aware that he had been executed. There is a common pattern here. That should be noticed. If only a handful of people think twice before having children in a questionable relationship, that could probably be called progress. This goes beyond the bio but where would you put it?

The similarities between the American, the Frenchman, and the Norwegian are chilling. 144.136.192.5 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

John Doe #2

John Doe #2 is still out there. Michel and Herbeck's "book" simply types McVeigh's "confession" as he told it on tape. There is no investigation on their part. Therefore, JD#2 goes free. What happened to investigative journalism? Too expensive? Brandon Stickney was the first reporter from the Buffalo area to actually attend McVeigh's trial. Where were Michel and Herback? Stickny's book was not a sensationalized HarperCollins pulp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckjohn (talk • contribs) 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

References To "The Turner Diaries"

This Wikipedia article claims: "McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the novel The Turner Diaries", but the included citations offer no support for that claim.

This Wikipedia article claims: "Photocopies of pages sixty-one and sixty-two of The Turner Diaries were found in an envelope inside McVeigh's car", but the included citations offer no support for that claim.

Esquire (a Hearst Communications, Inc publication) claims that McVeigh wrote: "Also noted some basic errors of known fact in grand jury report--copy of Turner Diaries in car (not!)". http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0501-MAY_MCVEIGH

150.135.161.68 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Jayna Davis conspiracy theory

I am deleting this because it is completely unsupported by everyone except Ms. Davis herself and does not warrant a reference here. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Shabeki (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Gulf war veteran

Unbelievable. Not a shred of mention about McVeigh's military service in the Gulf war, it is my belief he did serve in that war. It was also one of the reasons as to why he carried out the bombing, American being "the ultimate bully". I read most of the article by the way and I skimmed the couple of bits that I knew at that time were not related to any military service. No mention of his service in the Gulf war though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

His voting record?

Seriously? We know who he voted for? How? Elections are confidential. We can know what party he was registered as and we can know when and where he voted but in the end we only have his word for who he voted for and how reliable is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.148.178 (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Essential firearms: Five, or Six?

"[McVeigh] said that six particular guns were essential:" but only five are listed. Either way, the second sentence of the second paragraph of Arizona with Fortier contains an inaccuracy. I don't know which is correct. Does anyone else? Leveretth (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

footnote 25

the link which is supposed to be to article by SMU reporter quoting McVeigh is to an apparently dead link that may or may not be spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denverjsmith (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

From looking at the Wayback Internet archive it seems there was a site there that may have held that content, but it seems to have disappeared and begun pointing to the commercial site sometime between 2004 and now. I did find another source for the quote at the Baltimore City Paper, and I've replaced the non-working one. Thanks for pointing it out. Begoon ^talk 03:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Constitution or Declaration of Independence?

In this section of the article, there is a sentence which states:

He proclaimed his devotion to the United States Declaration of Independence, explaining in detail what each sentence meant to him. McVeigh declared that:

But then it goes on to quote him about the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Is this an error? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Vehicle Identification

The article states that:

"with the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of a rear axle found in the wreckage, the FBI identified the vehicle as a Ryder Rental"

- VIN numbers are always located on the body of vehicles, NEVER on rear axles.

According to the official story, the only identifiable part of the truck that could be found was its rear axle housing. From a serial number on the housing, the FBI (allegedly) determined that the truck was registered to a Ryder Truck Rental.

• Note that there are several problems with the official story:

1) The numbers that are cast, or stamped into axle housings, are ‘casting numbers‘ they are not serialized numbers.

2) Casting numbers will indicate the axles weight rating, its type, year, month and day (or the shift) of its manufacture. Casting numbers can NOT be used to uniquely identify an axle housing, all of the units of its type which were made during the same time period will have the exact same numbers.

3) Because of these factors, it would have only been possible to identify a wide range of truck models which may have been equipped with that particular run of axle housing. - this could provide several hundred, or thousand possible vehicles.

It is not clear how the FBI actually managed to identify the truck.

209.204.186.48 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The FBI identified the truck by lying. This was known at the time. The Elgin Blast Effects Study shows they lied about the bomb. Being able to read and use a search engine can quickly demonstrate the necessary components/equipment to make an ANFO bomb - none of which McVeight could have obtained much less the knowledge. ( I love the FBIs story of a lone man mixing up farm fertilizer in the fog of the early morning by the lake - this story confirms that Americans have dropped to high-grade moron status.)159.105.81.107 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the above (I know the far right/libertarian tradition of ascribing everything to sinister conspiracies by the govt) - is claiming the FBI lied implying that someone else did it? McVeigh admitted it - or was he supposedly some kind of pre-programmed tool of the FBI. The post also says that anyone using the internet can find out how to make an ANFO bomb and then says McVeigh though couldn't have done that?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.89.234 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Elgin study shows that even if McVeigh built an ANFO bomb it wouldn't have caused the damage seen at OKC. The damage would require a bomb placed inside the building - incidentally right over ( or next to) the day care - bigger emotional impact. Mcveigh may have admitted to a bomb but it needed a little enhancement to work so well ie building damage. Personally I doubt McVeigh had much to do with anything ( particularly anything that envolved building a bomb in the back of a truck near a lake. Just another confessing nut ( prepicked I suspect). 159.105.80.64 (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Two links removed?!

Why did you remove the two AmericanCatholic.org links that mention Timothy McVeigh and both his and Julie Welch's fathers and forgiveness? As a Catholic, I believe that execution and vengeance are not the solution, and you still act as if people execute criminals like McVeigh for "justice, peace, and closure, and not revenge"! This truly makes me sick! Why?!--Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

well that's how american people cope with inconsistence --79.197.66.30 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We have laws. By choosing to be born we agree to obey those laws. The law that prohibits killing people, particularly innocent people is a just law. The only laws we have a right to disobey are unjust laws. By murdering 168 innocent people he forfeited his right to remain alive. This isn't about rehabilitation. We are not obligated to financially support his remaining alive in a relative degree of comfort. We are obligated to give justice to the victims. Justice = vengence and that is what we as a people must do for those who cannot do it for themselves. So we put them to death. If you murder innocents you no longer have the right to call yourself a human being. You are nothing but an animal, a dangerous animal and we must make absolutely sure you can never harm anyone again and do so without expending money keeping you alive. If you murder you must die period. If you don't want to pay the price don't commit the crime. And don't go on about how he might not have done it. He did, he was convicted. His guilt has been proven beyond any doubt. Even if he had help that does not mitigate his guiilt. If someday we found he had help from somebody else then they need to die too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.148.178 (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"By choosing to be born we agree to obey those laws." (Slow clap) Wow. Just ... wow. 76.111.244.85 (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs

McVeigh wasn't an adherent of Christian identity. The source used to pin it on him doesn't stick. If there is no better evidence, please remove from article. --41.151.4.30 (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not Agnostic

McVeigh clearly believes that a 'god' exists, as he takes "last rites" before execution. Agnostics neither believe or disbelieve in 'god'. This is often confused with deism or atheism; however, atheism is the belief that there is no god (a-theism; inverse of theism), and deism is the general appreciation of 'god'. McVeigh never claimed agnosticism; but his rhetoric clearly shows reverence to 'god'.

Therefore, his "religion" should be a "religious" affiliation and not a irreligious disconnection, like agnosticism - the atheist religion is out, as he still believes in god but has disavowed an organization (Catholicism). Xan81 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

He sounded like some kind of "agnostic Christian" like it's comment in the West nowadays. --41.151.4.30 (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Number of Injured

In the section titled "Oklahoma City bombing" it stated:

" The explosion killed 168 people, including nineteen children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others." This is incorrect

The first reference was to: http://209.232.239.37/gtd1/ViewIncident.aspx?id=6621 which is a broken link to the "Global Terrorism Database". The correct link to the database is: http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/IncidentSummary.aspx?gtdid=199504190004. The number of injured is listed as 650, not 450.

The second reference was to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/stories/ok042597.htm which leads to a Washinton Post article about the prosecutor at McVeigh's trail. The article states that "over 500" people were injured, not 450.

The correct figure can be found in the report by the Oklahoma Department of Health entitled "Oklahoma City Bombing Injuries". The figures in this report are that "447 persons were treated in area hospitals...237 persons were treated in a private physician's office" which means a total of 684 people sought treatment. It is reasonable to speculate that many others were also injured but did not seek treatment either in hospital or by private physicians. Therefore, the most accurate statement about the number of people injured would be: "over 684 people where inured." However, I corrected the number to just 684 since the additional injures can only be presumed but not verified by a credible source.

I also removed the existing links and replaced them with one that leads to the Oklahoma Department of Health report.Pearl2525 (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

2 days before the bombing?

How could that photo of him being led out of the courthouse have possibly been taken 2 days after the bombing? --Captain Infinity (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Special Forces

More info, in his own words, about what him getting selected for Special Forces training: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/01/us/excerpts-from-timothy-mcveigh-letter.html Yadojado (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Gore Vidal

Another source: Gore Vidal on his three year correspondence with McVeigh: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109 Yadojado (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)