Oklahoma City Bombing & the Number Four

April 19, 1995 9:02 a.m. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed, killing 168 people [including 19 children]. Hundreds were injured -- some reports exceed four hundred. It was the worst terror attack on U.S. soil at the time. President Clinton was on the scene within days trying to ease their grief. It was widely reported that militia movement sympathizer, Timothy McVeigh, with the assistance of Terry Nichols, had blown the building up in retaliation for the Waco Massacre. The President blamed "hate radio" for whipping McVeigh up. There was talk of regulating free speech while conservatives distanced themselves from McVeigh as much as possible.

Army vet Timothy McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. Nichols was condemned to a life sentence. Case closed, right? Not exactly. I`m like most Americans, trying to focus on other matters. But I was confronted with something last night:

According to reports, Utah attorney Jesse Trentadue is claiming the FBI edited some security camera videotapes on the morning of the Oklahoma City bombing. "

Quoting the AP, the report went on that four cameras in four different locations blanked out simultaneously on the morning of April 9, 1995 ".

Trentadue: The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02. The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn`t want anybody to see. The real story is what`s missing. "

The FBI has been dragging this investigation out for a suspiciously long time, reluctant to release these recordings. Their contrariness made Jesse Trentadue [and others] suspicious. Like pulling teeth, the Courts finally forced the FBI to relent, and now there is this coincidence ".

Trentadue takes this matter personally. His brother, Kenneth Trentadue, was reported dead in August of 1995 [Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center]. Official cause of death was suicide. But it is Jesse Trentadue`s opinion that guards beat his brother to death. The suicide ", by the way, included forty one wounds and bruises. [FoxNews reported that Kenneth Trentadue`s family was awarded a $1.1 million lawsuit.]

Trentadue also sought documents from the CIA but was barred by national security interests. [Maybe he should ask Sandy Berger to get the documents. Doesn`t he have clearance again?]

Long-secret security tapes showing the chaos immediately after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building are blank in the minutes before the blast and appear to have been edited ... " [snip]

Trentadue: "It`s taken a lawsuit and years to get the tapes ... The more important thing they show is what they don`t show. These cameras would have shown the various roads and approaches to the Murrah Building."

I find the number, "four", interesting. There was one name that kept haunting me about the bombing, Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, USAF (Ret.). The general`s knowledge of bomb damage and explosives is rare. He laid out a compelling case that there were actually four small charges detonated during the OKC bombing. His impressive bio is an open book and can be found here: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6688 http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/partinres.html

I did not want to believe him. If what Gen. Partin said is true, then we are confronted with one of the biggest scandals of the 20th Century, and possibly the biggest known. But four tampered cameras tie in too well with four small charges in the building. Coincidence? Maybe. But are they related?

In a letter to Senator Lott, Gen. Partin wrote this: "Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level."

Gen. Partin was suspicious of the hasty way that the crime scene was contaminated in the name of "closure" for Oklahoma City. He wrote: "It is truly unfortunate that a separate and independent bomb damage assessment was not made during the cleanup, before the building was demolished on May 23 and hundreds of truck loads of debris were hauled away, smashed down, and covered with dirt behind a security fence."

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]

"First, blast through air is a very inefficient energy coupling mechanism against heavily reinforced concrete beams and columns. Second, blast damage potential initially falls off more rapidly than an inverse function of the distance cubed. That is why in conventional weapons development, one seeks accuracy over yield for hard targets." [snip]

That is just a sample of how he gets into the nitty-gritty of demolitions physics. The bottom line is that you can look at a bomb site and see what kind of detonations took place. I`ll try to simplify. If there is a rapid shift in the damage, that means it was a small contact explosive. If the damage is more even, that would be the distant impact of a huge bomb.

Letter from Gen. Partin to U.S. Sen. Trent Lott
Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)

Sen. Trent Lott
United States Senate
487 Senate Russell Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2403

Dear Sen. Lott:

The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.

Weapons Experience: I do not offer such an analytical conclusion lightly. I have spent 25 years in research, design, development, test and management of weapons development. This included: handson work at the Ballistic Research Laboratories; Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, and ultimately management responsibility for almost every nonnuclear weapon device in the Air Force (at the Air Force System command, Air Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) levels). I was also the first chairman of the OSD joint service Air Munitions Requirements and Development Committee. (A more detailed resume appears at Tab 1.)

Observations in Oklahoma City: To verify earlier analysis, I visited Oklahoma City during the last week of June. There I had the opportunity to view hundreds of photographs taken throughout the cleanup operation as the layers of debris were cleared away. The photos present irrefutable evidence that at least four demolition charges were set off at four critical columns of the reinforced concrete structure at the floor level of the third floor.

Conclusion: Based on my experience in weapons development and bomb damage analysis, and on my review of all evidence available, I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb. The total incompatibility of this pattern of destruction with a single truck bomb lies in the simple, incontrovertible fact that some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed if the damage were caused solely by a truck bomb, and, conversely, some of the columns were left standing that should have collapsed if the damage had been caused solely by the truck bomb.

It is my hope and request that, as a Member of Congress, you will support a Congressional investigation to determine the true initiators of this bombing, which could not have occurred the way in which it has been portrayed as having happened. Further, it is requested that you defer action and reserve judgment on socalled antiterrorism legislation that has serious civil liberties implications, and which would not be passed except for the Oklahoma City bombing until the causes of the Oklahoma City disaster are determined by independent investigators.

Both the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Trade Center in New York (See New York Times, October 28, 1993, p. A1) show evidence of a counterterrorism sting gone wrong.

No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a counterterrorism sting operation, sabotage or terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.

If an aircraft crashed because of a bomb, or a counterterrorism sting or an FAA Controller error, the FAA would not be permitted to gather and bury the evidence. The National Transportation Safety Board would have been called in to conduct an investigation and where possible every piece of debris would have been collected and arrayed to determine cause of failure.

To remove all ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementary demolition charges, the FBI should be required to release the high quality surveillance color TV camera tape of the Murrah building bombing on April 19, 1995.

It is my observation that the effort required to bomb the A. P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City pales in comparison with the effort to cover up evidence in Oklahoma and the media`s withholding of vital information from the American people.

Now when I think of the Oklahoma City Bombing, I will ponder the number, four ".

"Mines routinely move 1,000 tons of overburden with a ton or so of [ANFO] charge."

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).

The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.

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.

Those are not my words. I have never addressed "Who?" or "Why?"

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.

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

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.

Thanks for making my case.

"The debate is over. We don't need to debate. We are the experts."

Just like the AGW warmers!

"The debate is over. We don't need to debate. We are the experts."

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 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.

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:

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?

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.

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.