I picked the 'official story' on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing over the popular conspiracy theories
I had to choose between believing the full FBI report or the idea that there was a much larger, hidden plot with other bombers. I went with the official findings (you know, the ones that point to McVeigh and Nichols) after reading the trial transcripts from Denver. It went fine, but now I get called naive in these discussions. Anyone else get pushback for sticking with the simpler explanation on a big event?
Felt tired" is right. The thing that gets me is how the official story, even when it's right, never really explains the vibe of the time right before it happened.