~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm tempted to describe what you are full of; instead, I'll be generous and say that you are misled by a "camouflage effect" on early aerial photos. You sound like the ignorant rantings of the kinds of wackos here on FR who just have to see some sort of conspiracy in everything that happens.
Check my FRProfile. One of the reasons that I, as a fact-driven scientist. became involved with the analysis of the MB collapse, was because I was fed up with all the wacko BS like yours. ("No crater", "Laser/plasma beam from space", "Cars shoved up beneath the pavement", "Thermobaric (FAE) bomb centered over the parking lot", etc., etc...)
Your fallacy has a very simple explanation. Here's a photo taken about two hours after the explosion:
The blast damaged an A/C "chiller" uphill from the crater, quickly filling it wih red, OK-mud-tinted water. And, the water surface was covered with floating debris -- mostly sheets of paper. Voila! -- an almost perfectly-camouflaged crater!
I spent the better part of a year -- focusing on that crater and determining its dimensions. Obviously, FBI SAIC, Danny Defenbaugh flatly lied, by stating that the crater was covered "to protect water-soluble evidence". The crater was covered by eight (8) sheets of plywood (figure out the maximum dimensions for yourself...). Yet, the FBI reported the crater diameter as 28 to 32 feet -- thereby vastly overstating the force and brisant range of the truck-borne explosion.
As you can see, I'm no "FBI stooge" -- but I will not tolerate the propagation of crap like, "There was no crater at the Murrah building in OK city..." -- when I spent years eliminating such garbage -- in order to come to the correct conclusions (which the FBI misreprsented).