LAK said:
Some suspicion or paranoia is healthy, and I would argue, warranted against certain government bodies with a history of misconduct.
That still doesn't mean it's at all logical to assume something without a shred of actual evidence, when that event could have occurred on its own. The simplest thought exercise is to envision a scenario where someone with a million dollars knows beyond a doubt whether or not ATF is behind the flashlight bombing. That person has the answer written on a post-it, face-down, on a desk. It says YES or NO, and the person is impartial and somehow has definite proof... you are sitting across the desk, and you will be awarded one million dollars for answering correctly.
You, and I, have no way of knowing for sure, of course. I find it improbably, and probably implausible... you apparently find it plausible. But if you're honest, would you argue that ATF involvement is PROBABLE, 51% or greater, even though you don't really have any concrete evidence?
Something tells me even though you find the theory plausible and intriguing, if that much money were on the line you'd go with "NO" - because there is a much greater chance this is happening independent of any conspiracy.
