http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1121283291118.OKC61.JPG
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
After review of the “report” posted indicating that 4 charges were placed to knock down the Murrah Building in OKC I see multiple flaws.
The report itself is a joke. The failure analysis report for such an event would be hundereds of pages long.
The “report” claims that it is impossible to knock down a building with a truck bomb. Since the building was still standing, this statement is irrelevant to reality.
Take a look at the picture above. Does it look like a building that has been “knocked down” as the report tries to deceive you into believing or does it look like a bomb went off in front of the building knocking its face off?
[/quote]
The failure analysis would not have to be hundreds of pages long - only If the building fell down all on it’s own would that be the case.
The only thing he had to prove was that the single bomb in question did not do all that damage. You keep saying the whole building wasn’t knocked down therefore the whole story is ridiculous. You took a generality spoken by an expert as your basis for being right.
The study was conducted based on THE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE - not on if the whole building was knocked down.
It was not just the face that was blown off but a large portion of the interior including steel reinforced concrete supports - all the way to the FAR WALL.
The study concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fertilizer bomb did not cause all that damage. It said the MAXIMUM damage would have been only 1% of the floor area - MAXIMUM of 1%.
These guys are MUNITIONS EXPERTS. The test was done to document the proof and for the average layman - Partin knew for a fact without doing the test because it was so obvious to HIM - a MUNITIONS EXPERT. He became involved because he knew just through casual observation that the official story was an impossibility. A good part of the study was recording for the record the inconsistent damage.
Obvious points:
-
Blast through air is a terribly inefficient coupling mechanism against heavy reinforced concrete beams and columns. Blast wave energy drops dramatically when traveling through air, initially falling off more rapidly than an inverse function of the distance cubed.
-
Using the official estimate of 4,800 pounds of ANFO would yield a maximum pressure of explosion of about one-half million pounds per square inch at detonation. But by the time the blast wave traveled through the air to the nearest of the building’s columns, it would have dropped off to about 375 pounds of pressure per square inch, and by the time it reached the nearest column in the second row of columns it would have been down to 27 to 38 psi. The compressive yield strength of concrete is around 3,500 pounds per square inch, far above anything exerted by the truck bomb blast on the building’s structure.
-
The asymmetrical damage to the building - i.e., the off-center “bite” - presents another insuperable problem for the official scenario, requiring that the blast wave leave standing columns that were closer to the explosion while taking out columns that were farther from the blast.
-
Inherent in the official scenario is the absurd claim that the truck blast was sufficiently strong to collapse the huge columns and beams, but not strong enough to knock down sheet rock, furring strips, and other light, fragile materials.
[quote]
And of course if you were conspiring to deceive people and blow up a building, why would you plant charges in the building and then use a truck bomb? Just use the truck bomb and leave less evidence of your conspiracy.[/quote]
Because the truck bomb WOULDN’T DO THE DAMAGE INTENDED.
But lastly, your COMPLETELY DISMISSING all the actual live news coverage of 3 or 4 unexploded bombs, confirmed by federal authorities, still in the building. On top of that, the police transcripts released of that day and the FEMA reports all mention unexploded bombs being removed.
The problem is no matter how much evidence is presented most people can’t admit what they see might be true because they don’t want to.
The OKC bombing is a blatantly obvious cover-up. If you are willing to look at the actual evidence, you will suddenly realize you sat through a stage production of “Oklahoma” for 10 yrs. It’s at that point it may dawn on you that there is a possibility that 9/11 really wasn’t what it seemed either.
The only thing I asked when I started this thread was for someone that thought conspiracies were delusional crap to explain how the live news reports didn’t jive with the official story. I didn’t even ask about the motive.
I got plenty of insults, but not one skeptic bothered to explain what they were hearing - then I even added supporting evidence - still more insults.
No conspiracies? Like I said before, Enron shut down power to millions of people without regard to human life and suffering and stole huge profits from people who were barely able to make a living - and joked about it. How is what Enron did any different than al Qaeda? Actually Enron did far more damage. I didn’t see any of their execs being shipped to Gitmo. That was the worst act of terrorism EVER!
These are the same people running our government and who sat in on Cheney’s “secret” Energy Task Force - but seriously, I really wouldn’t worry about it…