Posted on 09/29/2009 4:29:06 PM PDT by null and void
bookmark
I agree -- BUT those charges are confined within boreholes -- in direct contact with the material they are "pushing around".
They are not acting via air blast coupling -- at distances of over 50 feet -- to selectively pulverize small sections of concrete (leaving the intervening surfaces undamaged).
Let us not forget that pieces were still hitting the ground an it was widely reported that some middle-eastern looking folks were seen running from the scene.
The government placed charges on only four critical points of the third floor to mimic the explosion of the truck bomb, rather than put in enough take down the whole building?
Are you kidding? This is moonbat logic.
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1413833#1413833
Well, FYI, and FWIW, here are some very old files- they take up to 10 or 20 “reload” or F5’s to come up, but they are still on FR:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/767803/posts
The OKC Bombing Roundup—
various links | 10-12-02 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0534f5597c.htm
OKC Bombing Links
Published: 05-18-01 Author: the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae3d912268a.htm
Oklahoma City’s lost information
Published: 4/23/01 Author: Jon Dougherty
Oh!
Just for the Pure-D “H” of it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/923304/posts
Some strange old Clinton Stuff...
various FR links | 06-04-03 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
There is an OKC bombing tie-in.
The only things I have said the government did at OKC were after the fact: lying, misrepresenting, concealing and falsifying evidence -- as well as generally acting the role of arrogant a$$#@73s. To that, we can now add deliberately destroying evidence (portions of the tapes preceding the bombing).
Did you even look at my graphic? On the side of the MB where the explosion(s) occcurred, the first and second floor walls were recessed -- to form a two-story-high porch. The third floor and the upper, external columns rested on the header beam.
The location of the brisant damage speaks for itself. If contact charges were used, they were placed outside the building, immediately below the third floor, against the junctions of the header beam and the external columns, and inside the porch. And, they detonated approximately four seconds before the truck bomb detonated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
You obviously have not examined the evidence, nor have you shown that you have any qualifications to even be able to comprehend the above; I am done with you.
Good to see you here! Thanks for your long-term contributions...
Different subject: do you know what became of glorygirl?
I remember her... her account is still open, but her last post was
The OKC Bombing Roundup-- Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:02:22 AM · 114 of 161
Thanks for making my case.
"The debate is over. We don't need to debate. We are the experts."
Just like the AGW warmers!
You have brought no technical reasoning to your side of the 'debate'. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
You have, however, stooped to mockery.
Are you kidding? This is moonbat logic.
As one sitting in the audience watching this 'debate', so far, TXnMA has handed your a$$ to you...IMHO!
Also, I'd be interested to know what you make of this:
At the bottom of the page, Gen. Partin also received a letter of support from from Rodger A. Raubach Ph.D. Here are a few snippets:
"I took the liberty of checking with the leading concrete supplier in my area in order to confirm the compressive yield figure that you used, that being 3500 psi. What I was told about concrete was very interesting ... In conclusion, General, I find myself in awe of the technical achievement that your report represents." [snip]
I have commented before on the technical merits of General Partin’s summary report. If you search the archives you will probably find the posts.
But why go into the technical details when the conclusion of the report is absurd?
Why would the “government” take the risky action of pre-positioning small charges only on one side of the third floor of building, adjacent to the truck bomb, when they knew these charges likely would not bring down the whole building? Why leave evidence that had to be brought down in haste later on?
Why leave survivors -—the same people who might have seen the small charges being placed. People willing to kill 168 people are just as willing to kill 400 to get rid of the evidence. Total destruction would have made the case against the VRWC even better.
So why place small charges that would only mimic what the truck bomb itself would do, instead of destroying the whole building? This is the question a thoughtful person would ask.
At the bottom of the page, Gen. Partin also received a letter of support from from Rodger A. Raubach Ph.D. Here are a few snippets:
"I took the liberty of checking with the leading concrete supplier in my area in order to confirm the compressive yield figure that you used, that being 3500 psi. What I was told about concrete was very interesting ... In conclusion, General, I find myself in awe of the technical achievement that your report represents." [snip]
Anyone who has taken a basic course in concrete design knows what the compressive strength of concrete is. It's in textbooks. It's on the Internet. There is no need to contact a "leading concrete supplier" to find this out. The language used by Dr. Raubach shows he knows nothing about concrete or structural engineering, so his endorsement is worthless.
The "government"? Where in the world did that come from?
I'm thinking the more likely scenario that the Clinton administration would have been wanting to cover up was a complex operation in place. Would have been extremely difficult to explain how these two local yodels would know how to do something right out of a "Mission Impossible" episode.
If there is anything to hide, and clearly there is otherwise they would not have 'washed' the tapes, then I would think that would be it.
Please address the logic of the pre-placed small charge theory:
Why only put a few small charges on the same side as the bomb truck instead of putting them throughout the whole building to bring it all down, thereby killing more people and doing a better job of destroying the evidence?
I can't. I haven't a clue. Can you address the logic of hiding the security cameras events prior to the blast?
Yes, the government is trying to hide something. That's an important issue that shouldn't be obscured by posting Gen. Partin's dingbat theory.
Which was the whole point of my first post. Here at FR we should focus on important, real issues and not made-up whacky ones. The latter make us look foolish to outsiders.
Yep, that’s why I asked... Thanks, anyway!
Maybe...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.