A Challenge to the Violent and Depraved

[Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org>]

> Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of explosives will tell you
> that two tons of ammonium nitrate, sixty feet from the base
> of a tall, reinforced concrete and steel building, will not do 
> very much more than break lots of windows.  You see, ammonium 
> nitrate is a low velocity explosive compound useful for moving 
> dirt.  A brissance, or shattering effect, on steel and/or 
> reinforced concrete requires an explosive compound with much 
> greater explosive velocity.... C-4, several types of commercial
> blasting gelatin, even TNT.

Speed may be important for efficiency, but don't discount brute force.
A sufficiently powerful bulldozer moving at .1 mph could knock down
those exposed support columns out front.  Likewise a sufficiently strong
ammonium nitrate blast can do it.  Once the columns fall, the whole
front of the building will collapse.

Columns like this are built to withstand compressive force from above.
Strength against side impact is not the principle design goal.

> If you observed the news footage of the Murray Federal Building 
> after the blast, you may have noticed that the damage was 
> configured in a semi-cylindrical fashion, rather than the conic 
> section which would have resulted from a ground placed charge of 
> sufficient strength.

A semi-cylinder IS a conic section.  What you may have meant is that
the blast should have carved out a spherical section of the building.
But of course, once the lower floors are destroyed, the upper floors
collapse.  So a roughly cylindrical section is exactly what you would
expect.

> Consider that the placement of the array of charges necessary to
> simultaneously shatter several dozen large bearing members in the
> building would have required several hours for a well trained
> demolition team, not to mention unlimited access to the building 
> after hours.

And you're saying the government did this, when nobody was looking.

> Seismographs recorded TWO impacts that day, several minutes apart.

This is total bullshit.  This fact alone shows that the poster hasn't
done his research.  Besides, it doesn't make sense.  What was supposed
to be the purpose of the two blasts?  What was supposed to be happening
during the "several minutes" between the two blasts?  Wouldn't you think
people would get out of the building after the first blast?  Why didn't
any of the survivors report two blasts?

What this is, is a garbling of a report of a nearby seismometer showing
two ground waves a few SECONDS apart.  This can be explained by the
building taking a few seconds to collapse.  It could be a seismological
artifact as well, an echo from a deeper rock stratum.  You'd need to get
an expert seismologist to analyze the trace.  A real expert, not the bogus
"explosives expert" who supposedly wrote this.

> 6)  McVeigh pulled an Oswald.  Quit crediting him with success.

The idea that McVeigh is intentionally taking the fall for this is a
real reach.  First, where is his reward?  He's going to spend the rest
of his life in prison.  What is his motivation for not talking, and for
getting involved in this in the first place?

Also, much testimony has established that McVeigh was deeply affected
by the Waco killings, as were many of us.  Such a person would not have
wanted to cooperate with the government.  You have to assume that he was
just pretending to be upset by Waco, that this conspiracy goes back for
years.

Now you've got Nichols involved, and he has to be convinced not to
reveal the truth, either.  Fortier was involved in the planning, as
was his wife.  It's a totally unmanageable situation.  At least with
the Oswald story, they killed the guy who could have spilled the beans.
With McVeigh, he or his buddies could talk at any time.

It's all speculation built upon improbability.  Anybody who believes this
stuff is an idiot.