Re: Blast in OK City bombing

Ian Goddard (
Mon, 05 Aug 1996 01:05:57 -0400

At 09:26 PM 8/3/96 -0600, Kyle L. Webb wrote:

>Ammonium nitrate and fuel oil is a disordered substance, thus having no
>preferred direction in its detonation. Unless the geometry of the bomb is
>such that it channels the blast wave, wouldn't the applied force be pretty
>much isotropic?

IAN: Yes, but James's reply speaks on how the isotrophy is broken.

Yet even if there is a variation in the force of impulse from vertical
to horizontal, there should be symmetrical distribution of impulse force
that falls off in direct relation to distance from blast epicenter on a
horizontal plane. But the damage to the building is not only too deep
but is also asymmetrical relative to the epicenter.

The best "one-bomb one-bomber one-helper" conspiracy theory I've heard
is that the truck and its arrangement of bombs was designed such that
many yet to explode barrel-bombs would shoot into the building and
then explode, causing maximum internal damage and possibly an
symmetrical damage pattern. Apparently this was a technique McVeigh
could have learned in his military training. I would like to hear
Partin's reply to this case for the "magic bomb" conspiracy theory.

>The analysis is correct for free standing columns, since the only bending
>moments are due to the difference in applied pressure along the beam.
>However in a building, the connection to the floors provides bending fulcrums
>which allow part of the concrete to be put in tension, causing the concrete to
>break since it has little tensile strength. The connections to outside concrete
>walls provide broad surfaces for the blast pressure to act over that couple
>fairly well to the columns. The reinforcing iron is started bending as well,
>and having lost the compression bearing structure of the concrete, then
>buckles under the weight of the upper floors. The explosive doesn't have to
>have the impulse to sever the beams, it undermines them and the weight of the
>upper floors does the rest. During the falling of a building, some of the
>re-bars will be placed under tremendous tension, and sheared along their
>That damage looks superficially similiar to the tearing produced by a nearby
>charge of high explosive along one side of the beam.

IAN: But this still requires that the blast exerts enough pressure to
undermine. According to Partin the physics dictate that, from blast epicenter
to column B3 ( the furthest in column taken out ), B3 should only experience
about 25 pounds of pressure psi. The thin decorative veneer covering over
columns B2 and B4 was not even blown off. I don't know, but Partin's
analysis in total appears compelling, then consider so much else.

Also, as James pointed out, the bomb in Saudi Arabia was larger. In fact,
the crater was 4X deeper and 3X wider than the OK bomb (a). The crater
is also closer to the building. The military grade explosive ' hexolite '
was used (b), which packs a far greater force of impulse than Ammonium
nitrate. Then witness that this much larger blast only takes the face
off a smaller building with no reinforced, or even unrenforced, columns.

The Saudi apartment building, not built to withstand a bomb, unlike the
Murrah building, was a house of cards. Yet a blast 3X larger with much
stronger impulse than the OK bomb does a fraction of the damage seen
in Oklahoma City. I don't know, but it seems curious.

(a) The Washington Post 6/27/96 (A25)
(b) The Washington Times 8/4/96

> I can't rule out what Partin is saying, but I'm offering a known
> damage mechanism that could reasonably produce a similiar effect
> without needing to invoke conspiracies.

IAN: I think we can agree that the facts could be interpritted
to support these two conspiracy theories:

(1) Only McVeigh and Nicholes dit it.
(2) McVeigh, Nicholes and others did it.

Therefore we cannot prefer one over the other due to its not being
a conspiracy theory, as both are. Every interpritation of fact will
support a given conspiracy theory. I think to many facts conflict
with conspiracy (1), and (2) looks far more consistent with fact.
Who those others are, I don't know.

Law of Identity: A is A, relative to not-A. A = (A + ~A)

Law of Nonidentity: If there is 100% A, there is 0% A. A = ~A

absolute reality: