And possibly developing into a full-blown fire.

Now there's evidence that the Saudis warned the FBI about the Murrah Building bombing.

I found this part most interesting:

When asked why the government did not do more to press McVeigh before his death if he was working for another government, Johnston said such a strategy "was apparently not in the game plan for the Justice Department ?"

Johnston says some of his information came from documents ordered sealed by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, the presiding judge in McVeigh's initial trial, which took place in Denver, Colo.

He went on to note that Matsch has never lifted the order, though "it?s kind of hard to see how it would affect Tim McVeigh now."

And a poster on Free Republic makes an interesting point:

There were a lot of people on this forum clammoring for McVeigh's death last year. I urged that we think long and hard before we kill one of the few people who knew the whole story, motivation, depth of involvement, major players and other inside details. To no avail, McVeigh was executed.

At the time I suggested that Tim McVeigh might one day see things differently. Little did I know that around six months after his death this nation would be attacked in a manner exponentially worse than the attack on the OKC Federal Building. McVeigh was involved in an attack against the FBI, BATF or other federal entities, and the building occupants. I suspect he was so focused on the BATF or FBI that he was blinded to the children and others in the building. Or perhaps he felt their deaths were warranted in exchange for those at Waco. Frankly it's difficult to understand how he could have done what he did. But I none the less feel that he would have seen the attacks on 09/11 differently.

I suspect McVeigh saw the OKC Bombing as an attack on federal agencies with colateral damage. I don't think he would have seen the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon as mere attacks on federal agencies. He would have likely seen them as attacks against the nation as a whole. I have no way of knowing, but I suspect he might have been willing to loosen up with some information if he were appoached correctly after 09/11. Terry Nichols hasn't. Perhaps McVeigh wouldn't have either. Or perhaps neither of them would if the feds didn't bother to ask them. Somehow I doubt the feds are too anxious to have Nichols or anyone tie in the middle-east to OKC. But then we have made sure that at least McVeigh will never be able to help us.

It's unlikely that McVeigh would be talking if he were alive today. According to Stephen Jones' book, Others Unknown, McVeigh orchestrated leaks to the NY Times in an effort to signal to his co-conspirators that he wasn't turning on them. That was in 1995, and between then and his death last year, McVeigh had numerous chances to talk but chose not to do so. During that same period, Usama bin Laden's overseas war against the US was escalating. If he had had anything to say, or had a change of heart, it was just as likely to have happened before 9-11 as after. As for the children he killed in OKC, he really doesn't seem to have cared.

Terry Nichols, on the other hand, is still alive, isn't facing the death penalty, and knows just as much as McVeigh about the whole thing, if not more. Why not just ask him? Oh yeah--he's not talking either.

Yes. But the question is, why isn't he talking?

the obvious reason he's not talking is there's nothing to talk about -- the government's theory of a 2 man wrecking crew is accurate.

I'm not saying the above is true -- but it would be the simplest possible explanation.

'never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by sheer stupidity..'

It's a simple explanation, but it doesn't fit the facts. There is an abundance of evidence that he has something to talk about.