Docker's OKC Bombing Conspiracy Thread

[mortimer]

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9803575

Authors:

Paul F. Mlakar, Sr., Fellow, ASCE, (Div. Chief, U.S. Army Engr. Wtrwys. Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS), W. Gene Corley, Fellow, ASCE, (Vice Pres., Constr. Tech. Lab., Inc., Skokie, IL 60077-1030), Mete A. Sozen, Fellow, ASCE, (Kettlehut Distinguished Prof., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN), and Charles H. Thornton, Fellow, ASCE, (Prin., Thornton-Tomasette Engrs., New York, NY)

Abstract:

The truck bombing of the Murrah Building caused significant damage to this structure. From the characteristics of the bomb crater, it was determined that the explosion yielded energy comparable to that from the detonation of 1,814 kg (4,000 lbs.) of trinitrotoluene (TNT). The blast directly removed a principal exterior column, and the associated airblast caused the failure of two others. The airblast also destroyed some of the floor slabs in the immediate vicinity. This paper describes the blast loading and its effects on the building.

Docker has not yet refuted ACSE's findings. Obviously, he is unable to.

 

[chipmunk stew]

You did not refute it. You mentioned that the bomb was smaller but forgot to mention that in reality it wasn't when taking into account the amateur nature of the truck bomb.

Refute things like this:

"Robert Frias, president of Frias Engineering of Arlington, Texas,after examining the EBES, concluded: “The Murrah Building wouldstill be standing and the upper floors would be intact had the truckloaded with explosives been the only culprit.” Moreover, Frias, apracticing engineer for over 40 years and a registered engineer inTexas, New Mexico, and Louisiana, stated: “Explosives had to havebeen placed near, or on, the structural columns inside the building tocause the collapse that occurred to the Murrah Building.”"

or stand down.

These are conclusions. Presumably Frias did some analysis of the evidence to reach these conclusions? When two people come to contradictory conclusions about an event, it's their analyses that count. Particularly when someone is challenging the status quo position, it's important to understand how they reached their conclusions.

 

[beachnut]

Face it. hes bottled it. He can't produce the goods when real evidence confronts him.

this is not evidence,

you have wasted another post

is this your purpose?

It would be neat if you could just make one big post on the subject.

Everything you know about it.

Oops, you have!

 

[kookbreaker]

Docker has not yet refuted ACSE's findings. Obviously, he is unable to.

And you gave him more time that he gives others.

 

[Gravy]

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone weighs in on this subject:

Murrah Redux: 9/11 Truth is a Bald Regurgitation of a Silly Tale We Heard Ten Years Ago

 

[Belz...]

I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.

Why don't you just answer his questions so he can get on with answering yours ? Stop dodging.

You admit your not an engineer, yet you constantly cite a body of experts when you defend the collapse of wtc.

So far, so good. Shouldn't he ?

 

[Horatius]

Why do you consider a mock up a more accurate analysis?

DR

Because it supports his beliefs, silly!







What?

 

[kookbreaker]

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone weighs in on this subject:

Murrah Redux: 9/11 Truth is a Bald Regurgitation of a Silly Tale We Heard Ten Years Ago

This description of a troother's website is incredible:

"His Internet entries read like a MySpace mixture of MTV's Real World meets Che's Congo Diaries, only on meth and in a German accent"

 

[Dazed]

Looks like Docker's given up.

I would have just taken the quiz. Anyone would have noticed the pattern: The last answer was always right...

 

[Drew]

Is Gravy the only one that actually does the research and the ones that believe the official theories just follow blinding because Gravy says so?

It seems kind of similar to those that follow blindly when Loose Change took over the internet by storm. People were just posting links saying "Watch loose change. It clearly shows inside job."

Here I notice people making posts...

"I need somebody to debunk this"

HUH??? You need someone to bebunk something? What is going to make you believe their debunk over the thing you want debunked?

Both sides clearly pick and choose certain things they want to talk about.

I guess I can post a link to the original news reports that report the bomb squad removed two bombs from the Murrah building that didn't explode...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBvX3P8IjE

But what does anything any of you post in here actually proove?

Some of you like to attack someone on their spelling. But you only attack the people that are against your theories. I never see any of you attack those that are on your side for spelling.

Gravy...In this thread you pointed out that someone used "your" where he should have used "you're". I notice that your followers do that hundreds of times, yet you never point that out to them.

Some of you spend waaaaaaaaay too much time posting personal attacks as if it's supposed to be some sort of credibilty to your position.

I thought that this forum stood for something bigger than petty personal attacks. I thought this forum was different than people just following blindly because someone said something that fits in with their beliefs.

 

[Dazed]

I thought that this forum stood for something bigger than petty personal attacks. I thought this forum was different than people just following blindly because someone said something that fits in with their beliefs.

This is a relatively simple myth to disspell. Post some questions about 9/11.

There's no better way to get called a retard by 400 people who haven't even read your post.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Is Gravy the only one that actually does the research and the ones that believe the official theories just follow blinding because Gravy says so?
....
I guess I can post a link to the original news reports that report the bomb squad removed two bombs from the Murrah building that didn't explode...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBvX3P8IjE

But what does anything any of you post in here actually proove?
....
I thought that this forum stood for something bigger than petty personal attacks. I thought this forum was different than people just following blindly because someone said something that fits in with their beliefs

I suggest you read through this thread about OKC:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55243&highlight=Oklahoma+City

 

[kookbreaker]

Is Gravy the only one that actually does the research and the ones that believe the official theories just follow blinding because Gravy says so?

Gravy has certainly done more research than almost everyone here, but don't take that as a sign that he's the only source of info around here. He's a start quarterback, but even the best QB needs competent recievers and blockers.

We have people here with a wide variety of backgrounds and professions whose skills are often relevant in some manner to the events of 911. We have several engineers, pilots (real ones), airplane mechanics, architects. and even a truss designer. All of these folks bring sets of skills to the debunking table. Its not exclusive to those with these skillsets, after all, for just living in Manhattan can be useful for debunking the nonsense nutters like you spread. A simple bit of work and logic can make up for not being in the right field. Heck, even just interviewing firefighters rather then quote mining them can prove useful. Those who lack the skills can at least seek out the people who do have the proper skills.

The point is: We all know BS when we see it. Gravy researched a lot of this stuff and did an incredible job. He organized it and the result is about a million times better than the slops the 'troother' movement has come up with. But make no mistake: If he were to try a snow job, or to pull something that simple didn't make a lick of sense he would be called out in a heartbeat. That hasn't really needed to happen, since 100% of what the troothers pull out is nonsensical BS that fails the sniff test.

Now some folks do come out and ask for somethings to be debunked. Thats only natural. When you debunk nonsense like this you are expected to be an expert on a host of topics wheras the nutters like you merely have to pretend to be experts, while in fact all you can do is move goalposts and jump from topic to topic hoping debunkers won't catch up. So yes, we do seek help and expertise when we need to, it is the right thing to do. In your end of things, each one of you is trying to find the magic 'proof!' that, more important than exposing a conspiracy, will bring attention to you. Since the field is competative, the tnew theories become more and more outragous.

For example:

I guess I can post a link to the original news reports that report the bomb squad removed two bombs from the Murrah building that didn't explode...

I guess you could have done some research to find out those were training bombs for the BATF and weren't actually explosive.

QED.

 

[Drew]

I suggest you read through this thread about OKC:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55243&highlight=Oklahoma+City

Again, it's just people posting things in a forum. Whether I'm with the prosecution or the defence, I can find "experts" to fit my theory or theories of what happened.

If you believe the news reports, there were bombs in the building.

Half the population thought OJ was guilty...Half thought he was innocent. People talked about things that fit in with their beliefs.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Is Gravy the only one that actually does the research and the ones that believe the official theories just follow blinding because Gravy says so?

It seems kind of similar to those that follow blindly when Loose Change took over the internet by storm. People were just posting links saying "Watch loose change. It clearly shows inside job."

Here I notice people making posts...

"I need somebody to debunk this"

HUH??? You need someone to bebunk something? What is going to make you believe their debunk over the thing you want debunked?

Both sides clearly pick and choose certain things they want to talk about.

I guess I can post a link to the original news reports that report the bomb squad removed two bombs from the Murrah building that didn't explode...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBvX3P8IjE

But what does anything any of you post in here actually proove?

Some of you like to attack someone on their spelling. But you only attack the people that are against your theories. I never see any of you attack those that are on your side for spelling.

Gravy...In this thread you pointed out that someone used "your" where he should have used "you're". I notice that your followers do that hundreds of times, yet you never point that out to them.

Some of you spend waaaaaaaaay too much time posting personal attacks as if it's supposed to be some sort of credibilty to your position.

I thought that this forum stood for something bigger than petty personal attacks. I thought this forum was different than people just following blindly because someone said something that fits in with their beliefs.

You're painting with an awfully broad brush there Drew. Every board, since the dawn of BBS's, has had its spectrum of posters. This forum is no different; though I do think this forum has a better signal-to-noise ratio than most.

 

[Drew]

Gravy has certainly done more research than almost everyone here, but don't take that as a sign that he's the only source of info around here. He's a start quarterback, but even the best QB needs competent recievers and blockers.

We have people here with a wide variety of backgrounds and professions whose skills are often relevant in some manner to the events of 911. We have several engineers, pilots (real ones), airplane mechanics, architects. and even a truss designer. All of these folks bring sets of skills to the debunking table. Its not exclusive to those with these skillsets, after all, for just living in Manhattan can be useful for debunking the nonsense nutters like you spread. A simple bit of work and logic can make up for not being in the right field. Heck, even just interviewing firefighters rather then quote mining them can prove useful. Those who lack the skills can at least seek out the people who do have the proper skills.

The point is: We all know BS when we see it. Gravy researched a lot of this stuff and did an incredible job. He organized it and the result is about a million times better than the slops the 'troother' movement has come up with. But make no mistake: If he were to try a snow job, or to pull something that simple didn't make a lick of sense he would be called out in a heartbeat. That hasn't really needed to happen, since 100% of what the troothers pull out is nonsensical BS that fails the sniff test.

Now some folks do come out and ask for somethings to be debunked. Thats only natural. When you debunk nonsense like this you are expected to be an expert on a host of topics wheras the nutters like you merely have to pretend to be experts, while in fact all you can do is move goalposts and jump from topic to topic hoping debunkers won't catch up. So yes, we do seek help and expertise when we need to, it is the right thing to do. In your end of things, each one of you is trying to find the magic 'proof!' that, more important than exposing a conspiracy, will bring attention to you. Since the field is competative, the tnew theories become more and more outragous.

For example:



I guess you could have done some research to find out those were training bombs for the BATF and weren't actually explosive.

QED.

Again, calling me a nutter proves you have no credibility.

Everything you post before and after that has absolutely no value.

 

[kookbreaker]

Again, it's just people posting things in a forum. Whether I'm with the prosecution or the defence, I can find "experts" to fit my theory or theories of what happened.

Actually, no its not. There are references to the source of these 'bombs'. Obviously you decided reading teh whole thread linked was too much like work.

If you believe the news reports, there were bombs in the building.

The problem is that you are taking news reports of that day as gospel.

Had you bothered to read what was referred to you, rather than dismissing it you would have found (among other things) links to:

http://extras.denverpost.com/bomb/his22.htm

Where is says:

11:22 a.m. - The bomb squad reports that there is no second bomb. The suspected bombs were simulators used in training.

 

[kookbreaker]

Again, calling me a nutter proves you have no credibility.

Everything you post before and after that has absolutely no value.

Handwaving dismissal of inconvenient facts is not an arguement.

 

[chipmunk stew]

If you believe the news reports, there were bombs in the building.

There were. The news reports were right about that. They were not planted by McVeigh or the government, though (they were not planted at all) and they turned out to be harmless and belong to BATF.

 

[Dazed]

Just out of curiousity, does the bomb squad usually pull one of these?

Dispatch: We've got a bomb in the murrah building!

Bomb squad: Quick, get a man over there to set up fake bombs, this is the training opportunity of a lifetime!