Oklahoma City Bombing: A New Perspective

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I know this will be a topic that will have some pointing and saying oh, another crackpot conspiracy theorist at work. But, I ask you to indulge my theory here as I am basing 90% on facts. Please submit contrasting points of veiw, but let's be mature please.

My theory of the explosion: The Ryder truck was filled with ammonium nitrate, deisel fuel and oxygen canisters for accelerant. Impossible. Reason: It would take approximately 15 tractor trailers of this material to cause the severe structural damage that occured. Ammonium nitrate (cow manure and deisel fuel with a triggered timing device) does not have a very efficient burn rate to give the concussion necessary to cause severe damage.

Point 2. The detonation of any explosive in a contained vessel will by nature of physics radiate it's concusion in a hemispherical path. Nearby buildings across the street only suffered minor damage and broken glass. The face of the building was constructed using the strucural reinforced concrete and rebar to give the building addequate protection against natural disasters. This type of bomb would have done nothing more than shatter the windows on the face of the building due to it's high structural integrity. The FBI and ATF both came to the conclusion that an ammonium nitrate bomb weighing in at 4,800lbs was used

Mcveigh and Nichols only were involved. This is the 10% I can never prove but here goes.

Mcveigh, being ex-military, was not very proficient in bombs or bomb making, hence my above theory on the device used. This type of terrorist operation would entail much planning, travel and inside inspection of the building itself. This requires money and access to federal property. I beleive there were more players involved that just these two characters. Mcveigh's involvement with the Michigan Malitia was a grand detail to help convict him in the mind of the press and public. Nichols was nothing more than a gopher for materials. Now some will say that Mcveigh confessed to the whole crime, yes he did, but what if he kept silent about the involvement of others for the safety of his family? Also the press pinted out this occured on the anniversary date of the raid on the Branch Dividions in Waco. mcveigh was also vocal about his disapproval with the governments handling of this case.

Chat away and let's see what's out there.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    About the building: I have less than zero technical knowledge about this stuff, but I'm reminded of the fact that they also said the WTC would never fall. I think there are some structural engineers fudging their work in order to make it seem like these buildings are stronger than they really are.



    Another thing: Given your reasoning in the other thread about guns, why wasn't it McVeigh's legal right under the Constitution to blow up the building? If you think the gov't is oppressive, you have the right to kill them, correct?
  • Reply 2 of 43
    robertprobertp Posts: 139member
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    <strong>About the building: I have less than zero technical knowledge about this stuff, but I'm reminded of the fact that they also said the WTC would never fall. I think there are some structural engineers fudging their work in order to make it seem like these buildings are stronger than they really are.



    Another thing: Given your reasoning in the other thread about guns, why wasn't it McVeigh's legal right under the Constitution to blow up the building? If you think the gov't is oppressive, you have the right to kill them, correct?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ok I can see this is going to be a fun one with you BRussell



    No Mcveigh had every right to his feelings about the ATF and FBI (his particular dislikes) but killing no way. My veiws on guns and gun ownership as you say are in no way reflective of this incident. As you are suggesting, there is a great difference between an amendment stating our rights and someone who commits acts of terrorism. How do you compare my veiw of the gun topic to Mcveigh killing people? My reasoning in the other thread has never stated anything about killing anyone so what is up with this remark? And further more my gun ownership veiw in no way implicates an acceptance to kill "oppressive govn't people". Please feel free to point out this post and I will correct it post haste. As far as your lack of knowledge on the beginning of my topic, you failed to see the questions raised pertaining to the explosion itself. According to what the ATF and the FBI stated as the device used, this just can't be possible, for the reasons I outlined.
  • Reply 3 of 43
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    Actually some very interesting points that I am suprised I have not heard before. (Must not travel in those circles.) How far away was the Oklahoma city building from the truck and how far away was the building across the street? Could this be the diffrence? Distance? I see what you are getting at. Was this a directed explosion, which would require someting a bit more sophisticated than manure and air? Or was it something closer to a truckload of C4 directionally molded. (I am talking from a lack of experience in explosives, but I understand that you can setup C4 as a directional charge, as you can with many other explosives.)



    Dunno, makes an interesting theory. Maybe the militas were not responsible alone? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 4 of 43
    robertprobertp Posts: 139member
    [quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:

    <strong>Actually some very interesting points that I am suprised I have not heard before. (Must not travel in those circles.) How far away was the Oklahoma city building from the truck and how far away was the building across the street? Could this be the diffrence? Distance? I see what you are getting at. Was this a directed explosion, which would require someting a bit more sophisticated than manure and air? Or was it something closer to a truckload of C4 directionally molded. (I am talking from a lack of experience in explosives, but I understand that you can setup C4 as a directional charge, as you can with many other explosives.)



    Dunno, makes an interesting theory. Maybe the militas were not responsible alone? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hi Noahj,

    according to the dimensional drawings of the bomb sight released by the FBI the Ryder van was 60ft from the building face. The other closest building was app. 400 ft away across the road from the face of the building. This type of device for a bomb is very crude but will work in the right situation. You are very close on the c4 issue though, except you will still have a hemispherical blast path. Only having a device planted on the surface to be destroyed or a device propeled toward a target that will detonante just before or on direct contact with a surface would do this. The theory being cast about is that line charges were planted in the areas of the support columns inside the building, thus leading to more than just the two as suspects. Most of the public could not get past the pictures of the children who were killed to see that there was more to this story than was being told.



    [ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 43
    little cusslittle cuss Posts: 150member
    i'd like a link to that FBI doc. please.





    i was there, 15 minutes afterwards, camera in hand leapfrogging piles of glass to get to ground zero... mcveigh's ryder was parked at the curb directly in front of the Murrah bldg. barely ten feet away from the front facade of the bldg. right in front of the daycare. mcveigh used refined amonium nitrate and racing fuel, a far cry from cow turds and diesel. his ignition system was crude, sure... but hot and if you know anything homemade HE... you know you cannot accurately predict burn rates and explosive force of these things. one might go off with the force of a firecracker... the next built similarly could level the hardest reenforced concrete structure. the buildings nearest the blast were ruinated... the apt. bldg you speak of, the one that lost all the glass? is indeed 400 ft. away. most of the bldg.s downtown lost glass.



    thanks in advance for the link...



    cuss



    [ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 43
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    [quote]Originally posted by little cuss:

    <strong>i'd like a link to that FBI doc. please.





    i was there, 15 minutes afterwards, camera in hand leapfrogging piles of glass to get to ground zero... mcveigh's ryder was parked at the curb directly in front of the Murrah bldg. barely ten feet away from the front facade of the bldg. right in front of the daycare. mcveigh used refined amonium nitrate and racing fuel, a far cry from cow turds and diesel. his ignition system was crude, sure... but hot and if you know anything homemade HE... you know you cannot accurately predict burn rates and explosive force of these things. one might go off with the force of a firecracker... the next built the similarly could level the hardest reenforced concrete structure. the buildings nearest the blast were ruinated... the apt. bldg you speak of, the one that lost all the glass? is indeed 400 ft. away. most of the bldg.s downtown lost glass.



    thanks in advance for the link...



    cuss</strong><hr></blockquote>



    An eyewitness account. better than a document in a lot of ways. However I would also like to see tha document. Cuss, you got any pictures you can share from the scene that shows the truck and the distance from the building. After all, you were there with camera in hand...
  • Reply 7 of 43
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    <a href="http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/murrah.html"; target="_blank">http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/murrah.html</a>;



    Some more on this.



    <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/images/20010219-b.html"; target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/images/20010219-b.html</a>;



    And a picture. Looks pretty close...



    [ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 43
    splodesplode Posts: 13member
    Hey.



    I've seen similar ideas. If you do some digging, there was an Air Force general (Retired Air Force General Benton K. Partin)who wasn't buying the story either. Supposedly he built a replica of the front of the building, filled a Ryder truck with the same ingredients and let fly. Nothing like the damage was done. Also, McVeigh did a test run of the home made explosiveas and got nothing.



    It's kinda like the JFK thang, rife with hidden info, weird coincidences and a lotta questions.



    splode
  • Reply 9 of 43
    timotimo Posts: 353member
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    About the building: I have less than zero technical knowledge about this stuff, but I'm reminded of the fact that they also said the WTC would never fall.<hr></blockquote>



    I'd like to see that quote. I can't think of someone saying, unequivocably, that WTC would never fall. It was designed to withstand the impact of a smaller plane (a plane standard in 1973, not 2001) and to withstand hurricane-force winds (which would have caused much more lateral loading energy than that of any plane impact). Now, in fact, each tower DID withstand the impact of a (much larger) plane, which also impacted at a much greater speed (hence, still more energy). In summation, much more energy was successfully absorbed by the Towers than was ever envisioned by any worst-case scenario.



    The buildings came down because of catestropic failures due to the high heat of jet fuel burning, which robbed various supporting steel members of their stiffness. As critical steel pieces turned to jello, they buckled or sheared, loosening the floor plate onto the one below. The (potential energy into kinetic) energy of the whole top twenty or thirty floors pancaking on floors below was of a magnitude that nothing I can imagine could withstand (hence why, in part, more than 1000 bodies were vaporized, with no trace of them to be found).



    This is, as I understand, the current wisdom on why the buildings came down, though important details are being strenuously debated.



    [quote]I think there are some structural engineers fudging their work in order to make it seem like these buildings are stronger than they really are.<hr></blockquote>



    Ugh. I can not emphasize too strongly how strenuously I doubt this. Sure there have been dishonest engineers, but engineers as a whole are trained to build safety into each calculation. It's too easy for calcuations to be checked (they are in Building Code conferences), and erroneous assumptions don't get far. Furthermore, the various Building Codes are conservative and therefore most buildings are for the most part "over-engineered."



    For example, steel being progressively overloaded dramatically deforms before it finally fails, but this deforation happens long before the actual failure. The steel becomes perversely stronger as it deforms, up to a dramatic breaking point. An engineer could point out that even as the steel is deforming, it is still structurally sound, and he'd be right. However, they do not, because seeing steel deform would freak you (and me) out (as well as damage finishes around the deforming steel, and so on).



    I once complained to an engineer who was sticking me with huge steel beams, and therefore making my mechanical connections and overhead ceiling heights a nightmare, by asserting "This stuff is over-engineered by a factor of 1.7 or 2 anyway, right?" He took safety so seriously he didn't speak to me for a week.



    Seems to me shifty structural engineers don't end up keeping a job for very long (because of building failures or costly delays because of run-ins with Code guys), so they have no incentive to be anything other than extremely conservative with their calcs.



    FWIW, Timo
  • Reply 10 of 43
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    OK.

    :o
  • Reply 11 of 43
    little cusslittle cuss Posts: 150member
    sure i do noahj... lots of pix, but no scanner. but then again my photowork is silver-based and is more about archivability than webthings... plus, i don't really like the idea of putting them on a photoserver. call me paranoid too, but not conspiracy-prone. lots of pix available to you if you search. look closely too... you'll see that neither of the four major support columns on the corners were cut...their integrity was compromised but it still took lots of shape charges to bring the rest of the building down during demo. the truck bomb wasn't that big, but it did pack enough force to dig a hole in the central front base of the structure... causing the floors above to pancake and come down (gravity packed the most punch, just like WTC). so the pix look alot worse than the bomb's actual effect.



    let's not lose our common sense here...



    cuss



    [ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 43
    robertprobertp Posts: 139member
    Sorry for my being so late to return to my own thread, but work came first. Anyway, my initial information that I posted is quite old, I found the sight in 1996 it is still active but the links to the Oklahoma paper that showed the original FBI sketch and some photos is no longer on their server. the sight was under <a href="http://www.nando.net,"; target="_blank">www.nando.net,</a> I believe this was a supplement or sister paper to the oK city paper. Noahj found a great link he posted which does indeed refute the bomb theory presented by the ATF investigation. If anyone is interested there is a book titled The Oklahoma City Bombing and The Politics of Terror by David Hoffman with a forward chapter by OK State Representative Charles Key, who also staed he was not buying into the bomb composition theory. For those interested in conspiracy info <a href="http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt.htm"; target="_blank">www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt.htm</a> has info on this book with pages online. I wish to say that my intent on this thread is not one of paranoia, but one to seek alternate and more truthful answers than what was presented by the government. Several reputable individuals in the above book have gone out on a limb to refute and prove the evidence that was presented at the initial hearings was inacurate and in some cases down right improbable. Please decide for yourself what if anything you may learn is different from what you have heard in the past. Only by opening up our mind to further possibilities can we seek to find the real truth in any given travesty.



    [ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]



    [ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]



    [ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]



    [ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 43
    robertprobertp Posts: 139member
    [quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:

    <strong><a href="http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/murrah.html"; target="_blank">http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/murrah.html</a>;



    Some more on this.



    <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/images/20010219-b.html"; target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/images/20010219-b.html</a>;



    And a picture. Looks pretty close...



    [ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not the drawing I saw noahj, but a great posting job you did with this one. Unfortunately my link in my post that showed the original FBI drawing in the OKC newspaper (I think it was this paper) is no longer active. see my post for another link to a great book on the topic. Thanks again for this vital link.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    little cusslittle cuss Posts: 150member
    robert...



    i appreciate your kindness and cool tones. i'm a copy-editor at same-said newspaper(The Daily Oklahoman, circ 350k). i worked not only the bombing but the f5 tornado in may of '99. excuse my sloppy style on these forums but uh, i do this for a living so ... yeah.



    speaking only as a journalist and first-hand witness(not to mention amateur bomb builder of some successes, toot toot, goes my own horn) i can tell you that our men on the job, Clay and Bozkiewicz, have delved deeply into these theories and presented them to some fine professors down the road at OU and elsewhere and found little real evidence to support them. so little in fact that we rarely mentioned their exsistence in the paper without tons of disclaimers and won't publish any such flimsy crap nowadays(been there done that, with that particular book). Look how many books were written on the JFK assassination? how many of those, do you suppose, are accurate? any dumbass can write a book, go to yer local Borders for proof. Note it's quack publishing house and their other titles for reference. these books sell good at gun shows and nowhere else... fer a reason.



    so to you i say, stand back for a sec... look at that 'schematic'... it's about the most unscientific drawing i've ever seen. notice also the unattributed and spectre-like 'scientists' who've supposedly signed off on these theories. they are ex-military men, and they, sadly, can contain the most paranoid people among our population(see also Mcveigh). to claim a 1k lb. ANFO bomb barely musses yer hair is retarded. i myself have built black-powder pipe bombs(single 1" cold-rolled with caps), and, with the proper hot ignition source, it easily severed 3 ft of re-barred concrete and it's concussion knocked me to the ground and pummeled the wind out of me like a punch to the gut.



    that photo isn't bolstering any conspiracy either ... and to be able to say that certain structural supports were cut rather than destroyed by the collapse of a "lowest-bidder-built" government building is a bit silly and poorly considered.



    let's keep it cool,



    cuss



    p.s. i'd love it if you'd present something a little more substantive. i'm no expert on explosives... so please, have at it, and if you don't believe me, send that book to a professor to read...i'm sure any scientist of merit would laugh at it's inconsistencies. some already have ... on the old AI, some shockwave studies were presented, purporting secondary explosions. i'd hate to have to refute them again, so please... stick to newer theories and thanks again.



    p.p.s. please to consider that dumbass professor of anthro in the PACNW that leads the hunt for bigfoot too. he was quite convinced he could extrapolate the size of the 'creature' in the Patterson-Gimlin film... and did so. then, some fellers from RIT/MIT got ahold of it.... heeee, wasn't pretty. so robt, the truth is out there and suffice it to say that you won't take my word for it... this is the last lengthy post without chuckles you'll get from me, okay? i've found what i needed know about it, now it's your turn i guess. why, little old me, once butted heads with a professor of entomology at the University of Nebraska because he believed in Rods... heheee, the stupid bastard. it took some work, and help from a buddy contracting at Sandia, but he eventually changed his mind. there's no shortage of idiotic scientists out yonder robt and they'll sign off on anything, in most cases, just to be the first, so be wary.



    [ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 43
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    The reinforced concrete can be pulverized much more easily than you think, especially considering the quality of concrete construction in the last thirty years. Let's assume it had a good soda/lime mix for this purpose and the weather was kind to the building. Remember also that in the frame structure of the building built out of a "monolithic" material such as concrete, when the bottom floor goes, so do the floors above, taking even more material with them in a snowball effect. It's one big moment frame where the entire building flexes synchronously. So when one part of the building fails, it causes a chain reaction much more so than a braced frame type. The benefit of building with moment frames it that they "bend" a lot more before breaking, but the point of failure is that much more catastrophic. I don't know if temperature of the blast would have played a role also. I assume not. But remember that when the point of failure is reached on a structure, a whole new set of rules and consequences take effect. A building in failure will not act like a building intact.



    I thought the truck was fare closer to the Murrah building than any other in the area?
  • Reply 16 of 43
    little cusslittle cuss Posts: 150member
    it was BR, it sat on the nearest curb with only the distance of yer average downtown sidewalk between it and the front of the building. not much more than 10 feet i'd say. all of the investigative papers of merit i've seen bore the same conclusions that you have made. timmy's bomb scooped out a small portion of the building, structural failures and the domino effect took care of the rest. tertiary shockwaves were recorded from it's collapse. nothing more, nothing less.



    mannlicher/carcano my ass,



    cuss
  • Reply 17 of 43
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    [quote]Originally posted by Robertp:

    <strong>



    [1]My theory of the explosion: The Ryder truck was filled with ammonium nitrate, deisel fuel and oxygen canisters for accelerant. Impossible. Reason: It would take approximately 15 tractor trailers of this material to cause the severe structural damage that occured. Ammonium nitrate (cow manure and deisel fuel with a triggered timing device) does not have a very efficient burn rate to give the concussion necessary to cause severe damage.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ain't true. There could have been enough in that truck to do it.



    [quote]<strong>Point 2. The detonation of any explosive in a contained vessel will by nature of physics radiate it's concusion in a hemispherical path. Nearby buildings across the street only suffered minor damage and broken glass. The face of the building was constructed using the strucural reinforced concrete and rebar to give the building addequate protection against natural disasters. This type of bomb would have done nothing more than shatter the windows on the face of the building due to it's high structural integrity. The FBI and ATF both came to the conclusion that an ammonium nitrate bomb weighing in at 4,800lbs was used </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You never know how an ACTUAL bomb is going to blow (from my own experience, ahem) and therefore the theoretical hemisphere isn't always a good guess. Also, modern buildings are easily undermined by explosions because they aren't designed to withstand them.



    To see a similar incident, look at the Saudi barracks bombing.



    The other stuff? I don't know.



    I'm not saying that this thing is NOT a conspiracy of some kind (perhaps to discredit the militia movement or something). But the above points don't work to make it look more conspiratorial.



    Besides, imagine the number of people necessary to cover that up? Heck, they couldn't even keep the M. Lewinsky thing covered up!
  • Reply 18 of 43
    [quote]If anyone is interested there is a book titled The Oklahoma City Bombing and The Politics of Terror by David Hoffman with a forward chapter by OK State Representative Charles Key, who also staed he was not buying into the bomb composition theory. For those interested in conspiracy info<hr></blockquote>



    I have read this book and it is fascinating. Many things about the whole case stank, not least the trial, in which so much evidence that displayed gross inconsistencies in the Government's case were arbitrarily excluded on very questionable bases.
  • Reply 19 of 43
    robertprobertp Posts: 139member
    [quote]Originally posted by little cuss:

    <strong>robert...



    i appreciate your kindness and cool tones. i'm a copy-editor at same-said newspaper(The Daily Oklahoman, circ 350k). i worked not only the bombing but the f5 tornado in may of '99. excuse my sloppy style on these forums but uh, i do this for a living so ... yeah.



    speaking only as a journalist and first-hand witness(not to mention amateur bomb builder of some successes, toot toot, goes my own horn) i can tell you that our men on the job, Clay and Bozkiewicz, have delved deeply into these theories and presented them to some fine professors down the road at OU and elsewhere and found little real evidence to support them. so little in fact that we rarely mentioned their exsistence in the paper without tons of disclaimers and won't publish any such flimsy crap nowadays(been there done that, with that particular book). Look how many books were written on the JFK assassination? how many of those, do you suppose, are accurate? any dumbass can write a book, go to yer local Borders for proof. Note it's quack publishing house and their other titles for reference. these books sell good at gun shows and nowhere else... fer a reason.



    so to you i say, stand back for a sec... look at that 'schematic'... it's about the most unscientific drawing i've ever seen. notice also the unattributed and spectre-like 'scientists' who've supposedly signed off on these theories. they are ex-military men, and they, sadly, can contain the most paranoid people among our population(see also Mcveigh). to claim a 1k lb. ANFO bomb barely musses yer hair is retarded. i myself have built black-powder pipe bombs(single 1" cold-rolled with caps), and, with the proper hot ignition source, it easily severed 3 ft of re-barred concrete and it's concussion knocked me to the ground and pummeled the wind out of me like a punch to the gut.



    that photo isn't bolstering any conspiracy either ... and to be able to say that certain structural supports were cut rather than destroyed by the collapse of a "lowest-bidder-built" government building is a bit silly and poorly considered.



    let's keep it cool,



    cuss



    p.s. i'd love it if you'd present something a little more substantive. i'm no expert on explosives... so please, have at it, and if you don't believe me, send that book to a professor to read...i'm sure any scientist of merit would laugh at it's inconsistencies. some already have ... on the old AI, some shockwave studies were presented, purporting secondary explosions. i'd hate to have to refute them again, so please... stick to newer theories and thanks again.



    p.p.s. please to consider that dumbass professor of anthro in the PACNW that leads the hunt for bigfoot too. he was quite convinced he could extrapolate the size of the 'creature' in the Patterson-Gimlin film... and did so. then, some fellers from RIT/MIT got ahold of it.... heeee, wasn't pretty. so robt, the truth is out there and suffice it to say that you won't take my word for it... this is the last lengthy post without chuckles you'll get from me, okay? i've found what i needed know about it, now it's your turn i guess. why, little old me, once butted heads with a professor of entomology at the University of Nebraska because he believed in Rods... heheee, the stupid bastard. it took some work, and help from a buddy contracting at Sandia, but he eventually changed his mind. there's no shortage of idiotic scientists out yonder robt and they'll sign off on anything, in most cases, just to be the first, so be wary.



    [ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Great to have a source at the newspaper and an eye witness as well. Could you please list the names of the ATF agents killed in the bombing. The press (Washington Post, NY Times, etc.) failed to print these deaths in the listing of victims. Seeing as you are copy edotor you should have no problem listing a link to your papers historical listings.You did say you were the copy editor for The Daily Oklahoman, correct? Also you could give us the link to the letter that state representative Charles Key wrote petitioning the First Circuit Court of OK City asking for a federal grand jury court order to keep the remnants of the building intact for further investigation. I have never heard of a crime scene being destroyed so quickly before, especially on the magnitude of the Murrah building being a Federal building. Also, why can't you show the pictures you took? You could not possibly have anything more than was already published could you? As far as debunking the credibility of the various sources in the book I gave reference to in my previous post, what of the 2 expert witnesses in the trial? Steven Burmeister, a 2year FBI agent gave testimony as to the chemical make-up of the bomb, and Linda Jones, a chemist from the UK, used to coroborate Burmeister's testimony. Could they not find witnesses with more years of field experience and someone from the US to backup their findings?



    [ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 43
    little cusslittle cuss Posts: 150member
    sorry...



    don't have a scanner. You could come to my house... they're hanging on my darkroom wall. I keep hearing all this rot about why no ATF/FBI deaths... even from Rep. Key. it stymies me, because Key maintains that the ATF were assigned to offices in the Murrah when everyone including Key knows their offices AND the FBI offices are at 50 Penn Place. Always have been. Some 3 miles north of the Murrah... as for a link to our archives? well, you pay the fee and you're welcome to it.



    <a href="http://www.newsok.com"; target="_blank">www.newsok.com</a>



    as to the expert testimonials of Burmeister and Jones? i dunno pal, ask the PA. i believe Mrs. Jones had worked many similar IRA bombings and had some expertise there. as for Burmeister... and the out-of-context-quotes of the book yer championing.... well, you do the math. these tricks are old-hat to me. You know, James Nichols wrote a book too. why not check out the gun show next time it's in town... you can find it there. right next to the one about some guy getting his wife killed for a sawed-off shotgun... next to another one about a "religion" that hoarded guns and manufactured methamphetamines in the name of God.







    c'mon pal... don't make me laff.



    Sam... are you referring to the 4k pages of crap the Feds forgot to disclose? i've read through most of it. one witness in those "phantom mannlicher carcanno 4k pages" claims santa claus did it. no shit. it's stuff that no judge, not even "lapdog" Matsch would allow.



    [ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.