WACO

THE CLAIM

That federal agencies caused the deaths at Mount Carmel through the assault they conducted, and then concealed material facts about how it was carried out.

THE THEORY, AS ITS PROPONENTS TELL IT

The strong and weak versions of this claim are very different, and the weak one is largely established.

The siege followed a botched ATF raid on a warrant. After fifty-one days, the FBI conducted a tear gas assault using CS gas delivered by armoured vehicles that breached the building. A fire began in three separate places within minutes and the structure, a wooden building in high wind, was destroyed in under an hour. Seventy-six people died, including twenty-five children.

For six years the FBI stated categorically that no pyrotechnic devices had been used. In 1999, after evidence surfaced including a recovered shell casing and internal documents, the Bureau conceded that a small number of pyrotechnic tear gas rounds had been fired hours before the fire and at a distance from the main building. Attorney General Janet Reno described herself as misled by her own agency.

Proponents argue that an agency which maintained a specific factual denial for six years, against its own records, has forfeited the presumption of good faith on everything else it said about that day. The stronger version goes further and holds that agents started the fire deliberately or fired on people fleeing, which is where the evidence stops supporting the claim.

WHAT IS KNOWN

The pyrotechnic reversal is established and is the hardest fact in the file. The rounds were used, the denial lasted six years, and it was abandoned only when outside evidence made it untenable.

The Danforth investigation, a special counsel inquiry with subpoena power, reported in 2000. It found that government agents did not start the fire, did not shoot at anyone on 19 April, and did not improperly use the military, while finding that some government employees had failed to disclose the pyrotechnic use and criticising that failure sharply.

The fire's origin was examined by arson investigators who concluded it was set from inside, with accelerant, in multiple locations. Surveillance audio from bugs inside the building recorded discussion consistent with spreading fuel, though the recordings are poor.

The infrared footage argument, that flashes on FLIR imagery show gunfire from government positions, was tested by Danforth in a field re-enactment. The conclusion was that the flashes were solar reflections off debris, and the reconstruction reproduced them.

EVIDENCE FOR

• A six-year official denial about pyrotechnic rounds, reversed only under external pressure.
• An assault plan that breached a wooden building containing children with armoured vehicles, and a fire that followed within minutes.
• The Attorney General's own statement that she had been misled by her agency.
• Documented failures by government employees to disclose material facts, found by the special counsel.

EVIDENCE AGAINST (THE STRONG VERSION)

• The Danforth investigation had subpoena power and access, and found the government did not start the fire and did not shoot at the building on the final day.
• The pyrotechnic rounds that were used were fired hours earlier and at a concrete construction pit some distance from the main building, so they are not a plausible ignition source for the fire.
• Independent arson analysis found multiple simultaneous ignition points inside the building with accelerant present.
• The FLIR gunfire claim was tested directly and the flashes were reproduced as reflections.

ASSESSMENT

Contested, and the two halves need separating carefully because almost nobody does. The claim that the FBI deliberately burned people alive is not supported, and the investigation best placed to establish it looked and did not find it. The claim that federal agencies concealed material facts about their own conduct for six years is not a theory at all: it happened, it was admitted, and an Attorney General said she had been misled by the people who worked for her. This file is in the cabinet because that second fact is sufficient to explain the durability of the first, and because OSA-134 followed from it two years later to the day.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THE GRADE

• Established and not a theory: the FBI denied using pyrotechnic devices for six years, then conceded in 1999 that some had been fired, and the Attorney General said publicly that she had been misled by her own agency.
• Not supported: that the government started the fire or fired on the building on 19 April. The Danforth special counsel had subpoena power, tested the FLIR gunfire claim in a field re-enactment, and found neither.
• To reopen the fire question: physical evidence contradicting the multiple interior ignition points and accelerant found by arson investigators. Nothing has been produced in thirty years.

FURTHER READING

• Waco siege · Wikipedia
• John C. Danforth, Final Report to the Deputy Attorney General (2000)
• US House Committee investigation into Waco, hearings (1995)