Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BigBobber
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?

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.

35 posted on 09/30/2009 9:16:12 AM PDT by houeto (Long Live the Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: houeto

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?


36 posted on 09/30/2009 10:39:21 AM PDT by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson