The Oklahoma City Bombing Coverup

Bomb size does not equal crater size. Most nuclear devices leave very little crater as they detonated a mile above ground. A 1,000LB HE bomb will leave a 30ft crater while a 1,000LB cluster bomb will leave no crater.

Before you spout off about bomb craters and blast damage do a little research, please
 
You're right in the sense that I had forgotten much aobut the OKC bombing, since for me the case was closed, and over 10 years have passed. Having read your posts and searched for independent verification of some of your claims, I find your evidence circumstantial, unverifiable, easily explained, or in the realm of hearsay. You question most the evidence that is contrary to your theory (and it is a theory) or ignore it, yet get upset when we question you evidence. Did you apply the same scrutiny to your supporting evidence when you first heard it, or was it just easier to accept that the gov't was behind it instead of a few people? If I had time to devote to this subject, I'm willing to bet I could find articles that contradict your theory and the government's case. Does that make them true or fact, just because someone wrote it down? No. It is just another theory. The theory I believe is, I think, the most plausible, because it is supported by the majority of the evidence.

I used to enjoy conspiracies, because they caused me to research, study a subject, and provided another point of view on an event. However, I kept in mind that seeing other possible scenarios in an event didn't make the most plausible untrue, they were just usually more dramatic.

You've failed to convince me even slightly, and probably never will. Especially if you cannot provide better and credible evidence that not only supports your claim, but contradicts the best explanation of what happened.
 
The specific cratering effects of ANFO:

The cratering performance of the 260 1b ANFO shots were compared to that of the TNT control shots: The ANFO crater radius was 7% smaller than that for TNT, its depth 9% greater, and its volume about 20% less. In light of the caliche material located about 1.5 ft below the surface, these comparisons were considered satisfactory.


20% less crater volume than TNT, blown over a wider are.
 
BryanLower said:
As a resident of Oklahoma, I find these conspiracy theories about the bombing particularly offensive. This isn't some movie. Real people were affected by this. Conspiracy theories are exploiting the pain of a lot of families
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I feel about how this guy and his pals deal with 9/11. It's one thing to have a plausible conspiracy theory that proves more plausible as new evidence comes in. But to push one that gets progressively more implausible, while not doing the slightest bit of fact checking, and when the issue really matters to so many people? That's disgusting. As I said in another post, these people sit in front of their computers and drool over disaster porn, and call that "research." Once the "darndest things" site gets fleshed out with more quotes, it'll give visitors a good idea of just how foolish and nasty these people are. I doubt if any but die-hards follow these threads at any length.

I've spent a good bit of time in Oklahoma, from the southeast all the way through the panhandle, and loved it. OK/NYC
 
DavidJames said:
you have yet to provide evidence for this claim.
Click to expand...

BATF agents didn't receive warnings to stay out of the building. Several of them were seriously injured in their office at the rear of the building.
 
manny said:
I've changed my mind, by the way. You are not arguing in good faith and you are a terrorist supporter.
Click to expand...

kookbreaker said:
Claiming that buildings were blown from the insides by comparing them to buildings of different designs and hit with smaller explosives is not anything resembling a 'fact'. It is candy-a@@ speculation of the lowest, most depraved sort.
Click to expand...

Nothing new here, just these quotes again. No new facts. Just an argumentative technique I learned from conspiracybeliever.
 
Just wanted to make a case in point about the lack of a crater...

Anyone remember the Mythbuster's episode with the cement truck? When they set off something on the order of 5,000 lbs of explosives in it? Took about .001 seconds for there to be no truck left. No crater. IN fact, not even a scorch mark, really. Within a few weeks, you wouldn't be able to tell anything went off there.

Explosive blasts are fluid, to a degree. The force will follow the path of least resistence, preferentially. Take a fire-cracker. Light it. Place it on top of an empty soda can. Doesn't do much. Place the same firecracker inside the can. Set it off. Observe the results.

The ground is a lot stronger then the building. The ground (and the chassis of the truck) actually redirected parts of the force upwards, back at the objects around the sides (such as the building). The ground can withstand a 10,000 force acting on it pretty easily. Very few buildings are designed to withstand such a force when it's applied laterally.

You need to quit getting your information on explosives from Rambo movies and prime-time TV. I've worked with explosives of all sorts (from C-4 to C-B, from black powder to TNT, from ANFO to AN-AL, from anti-personnel mines to anti-tank mines, from 1lb. shaped charges to 10,000 lbs. mass charges, and from mortar rounds to missiles). I've seen real explosives detonated, and been involved in doing the detonating. I've been present when tons (literal tons) of explosives where detonated in the destruction of material from Iraqi ammunition depots. You have no knowledge of the subject on which you pontificate.

The less one has to say, the louder and more often they seem to say it.
 
Huntsman said:
Just wanted to make a case in point about the lack of a crater...

Anyone remember the Mythbuster's episode with the cement truck? When they set off something on the order of 5,000 lbs of explosives in it? Took about .001 seconds for there to be no truck left. No crater. IN fact, not even a scorch mark, really. Within a few weeks, you wouldn't be able to tell anything went off there.

Explosive blasts are fluid, to a degree. The force will follow the path of least resistence, preferentially. Take a fire-cracker. Light it. Place it on top of an empty soda can. Doesn't do much. Place the same firecracker inside the can. Set it off. Observe the results.

The ground is a lot stronger then the building. The ground (and the chassis of the truck) actually redirected parts of the force upwards, back at the objects around the sides (such as the building). The ground can withstand a 10,000 force acting on it pretty easily. Very few buildings are designed to withstand such a force when it's applied laterally.

You need to quit getting your information on explosives from Rambo movies and prime-time TV. I've worked with explosives of all sorts (from C-4 to C-B, from black powder to TNT, from ANFO to AN-AL, from anti-personnel mines to anti-tank mines, from 1lb. shaped charges to 10,000 lbs. mass charges, and from mortar rounds to missiles). I've seen real explosives detonated, and been involved in doing the detonating. I've been present when tons (literal tons) of explosives where detonated in the destruction of material from Iraqi ammunition depots. You have no knowledge of the subject on which you pontificate.

The less one has to say, the louder and more often they seem to say it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but how do we know you aren't a gubbmint disinformation plant, huh, HUH?!?!?!?
 
Ammonium Nitrate is a cratering charge. But just because it is called a cratering charge does not automatically mean it will produce a huge crater. When I was in the service we used ammonium nitrate to create craters.

(Like Huntsman said) an explosive will take the path of least resistance. To make a crater with it we first would use a shape charge to “cut” a hole into the road. Then insert the cratering charge into the hole and bury it. Then it would make a nice crater. Blowing it up on the surface had little or no effect.

LLH
 
conspiracybeliever said:
And even IF it was the size they claim, the blast damage is still inconsistant.
Click to expand...

You didn't read my earlier post on page 2 about the transfer beam. The blast only had to be big enough to take out that beam. Without the beam the entire front half of the building was unsupported and collapsed under its own weight.

I made the pic below to show what the front of the building looked like. Is it really so difficult to understand that without that beam there's absolutely nothing to support the front half of the building? Is your brain not capable of understanding that?

murrah.jpg


Steve S.
 
steve s said:
I made the pic below to show what the front of the building looked like. Is it really so difficult to understand that without that beam there's absolutely nothing to support the front half of the building? Is your brain not capable of understanding that?
Click to expand...
I guarantee you that Roxdog's brain is both unwilling and unable to comprehend that.
 
conspiracybeliever said:
Also, the OK High Patrol Logs correlate with everyone else who reported bombs.
Click to expand...

During the Sago Mine disaster, every news source in America reported that all the miners had survived. Guess what? They were all wrong!!!!!! Apparently you're not familiar with the term "mass confusion."

Steve S.
 
steve s said:
Is it really so difficult to understand that without that beam there's absolutely nothing to support the front half of the building? Is your brain not capable of understanding that?
Click to expand...
Heh. Between this and all the, uh, analysis of the collapses of 1, 2 and 7 WTC I'm becoming convinced that these people think there's a generic thing called a "building" and that's that. No differences among concrete and steel and glass, no difference between beam and post and column/spandril, no understanding of trusses or connection methods or other load tranfer technologies, nothing. Just "building."

I used to mourn that these kids will be paying my social security. Now I'm convinced they'll get out of it by designing my retirement home.


ETA: Sweet illustration. It'll go unacknowledged by the CTers but maybe you can use it with some grade-schoolers someday. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom