May 26, 2003
from Website
100777
recovered through
WayBackMachine Website
"My knowledge comes from practical
handling of explosives," added Gronning.
"And my belief is that 4800
lb. of ANFO wouldn't have scuffed the paint on the building."
Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, U. S. Air Force, retired, has 25 years
experience in explosives and ballistic weapons design and testing. General
Partin also served as the Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology
Laboratory.
Partin has this to say:
"When I first saw the picture of the truck
bomb's asymmetrical damage to the Federal building in Oklahoma, my
immediate reaction was that the pattern of damage would have been
technically impossible without supplementary demolition charges at some
of the reinforced concrete bases inside the building, a standard
demolition technique.
"For a simplistic blast truck bomb, of the size and composition
reported, to be able to reach out on the order of 60 feet and collapse a
reinforced column base the size of column A7 is beyond credulity."
General Partin further explained that:
"The total incompatibility with a single
truck bomb lies in the fact that either some columns collapsed that
should not have collapsed or some of the columns are still standing that
should of collapsed and did not."
"Reinforced concrete targets in large buildings are hard targets to
blast. I know of no way possible to reproduce the apparent building
damage through simply a truck bomb effort."
"It is easy to determine whether a column was failed by contact
demolition charges or by blast loading (such as a truck bomb)," Partin
wrote in his letter to Congress.
"It is also easy to cover up crucial
evidence as was apparently done in Waco. I understand that the building
is to be demolished by May 23rd or 24th. Why the rush to destroy the
evidence?"
He concludes:
"This is a massive cover-up of immense
proportions."
The statement below is made by an Israeli
terrorist expert who used his experience with bombings in the Middle East.
In making his deductions he used film footage of the bombing just hours
afterwards:
"It is clear that they used certain methods
which were used in the Middle East. I mean using a car bomb, putting it
in front of the building, and maybe planting inside the building itself. My feeling is that it was not just an explosion outside, which is
clear it was outside as well, but also inside the building. So it is
more than one man. It's a network."
Sam Gronning, a professional blaster for more
than thirty years, says:
"I have been a blaster for over thirty years
and there is no doubt in my mind that ANFO could not have been by itself
the medium for that powerful an explosion... even enhanced at that
distance, I doubt that an external explosion could of created that
extensive damage at the reported weight of the bomb."
"My knowledge comes from practical handling of explosives," added
Gronning, "and my belief is that 4800 lb. of ANFO wouldn't have scuffed
the paint on the building."
"No truck bomb of ANFO out in the open is going to cause that kind of
damage we had there... In thirty years of blasting, using everything
from 100 percent nitrogel to ANFO, I've not seen anything to support
that story... I have set off 16000 pounds of ANFO and was standing
upright just
1,000 feet away from the blast."
Gronning went on to say that even a bomb that
big wouldn't have caused the damage seen at the Murrah building.
Dr. Roger Raubach, who has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and is now the
technical director of a chemical company has this to say:
"I don't care if they pulled up a
semi-trailer with twenty tons of ammonium nitrate; it wouldn't do the
damage we saw there."
David Hoffman, author of "The Oklahoma City
Bombing and the Politics of Terror" wrote the
following (taken from a chapter in that book):
Yet Rick Sherrow, who wrote an article for
Soldier of Fortune magazine entitled "Bomb Blasts & Baloney," contends
that the General's assessment of the bombing is somehow inaccurate.
Sherrow claims that the pressure wave that would have struck the
building from the [rapidly deteriorating] blast of the ANFO bomb (375 p.s.i. according to Partin's figures) would be more than enough to
destroy reinforced concrete columns, which Sherrow claimed in his
article disintegrate at 30 p.s.i. (pounds per square inch).
Sam Gronning doesn't concur.
"That's bullshit!!" exclaimed Gronning.
"Thirty p.s.i. wouldn't take out a rubber tire!"
Citizens monitoring police radios heard the
following conversation on the morning of the 19th:
First voice: "Boy, you're not gonna' believe
this!"
Second voice: "Believe what?"
First voice: "I can't believe it; this is a
military bomb!"
When J.D. Cash, a journalist writing for the
McCurtain County Gazette, tried to interview members of the Bomb Squad,
Fire Department and Police, he was generally told by potential interviewees,
"I saw a lot that day, I wish I hadn't. I
have a wife, a job, a family, I've been threatened, we've been told not
to talk about the devices."
The most amount of force produced by even a
perfectly made ANFO bomb weighing 4800 pounds, is 1,457 p.s.i. by the time
it hit the glass of the Federal building. It's a law of physics that the
destructive capabilities of a bomb fall off dramatically only a few feet
from the blast.
By the time the blast front made contact with the column nearest to the
bomb, the pressure would have decreased to 375 p. s. i., far below the 5,600
p. s. i. compressive yield strength of concrete. Even using General Partin's
very conservative figure of 3,500 p.s.i. for the compressive yield strength
of concrete, you would still require nine times the potential damage
pressure from the bomb at that distance.
Furthermore, the government would have us
believe that the same bomb was able to blast through an additional seven
major concrete columns.
If we are to believe the absolute absurdity of the
governments "science", then we should also endorse the practices of voodoo
and witchcraft, for they both have the same amount of credibility.
Simply stated, it is a physical, chemical and thermodynamic impossibility
for a 4800 pound ANFO bomb, at a distance of approximately 20 feet away, to
of inflicted the kind of damage the government said it did.
As reported widely on CNN & news stations across the nation on the day of
the bombing, up to four primed bombs were found inside the building by bomb
detecting dogs.
The
BATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and
Firearms) later said they were dummy bombs, but why would bomb sniffing dogs
find, or be needed to locate dummy bombs which are clearly marked as such;
furthermore, why would munitions technicians spend so much time diffusing
"dummy" bombs?
KFOR-TV said that another bomb had been located strapped to a
column next to the day-care center.
Around the noon hour, Channel 4 had as their guest Dr. Randall Heather,
a terrorist expert.
Dr. Heather stated:
"We got lucky today, if you can consider
anything about this tragedy lucky. We have both of the bombs that were
defused at the site and they are being taken apart. We will be able to
find out how they were made, and possibly who made them. These bombs are
very sophisticated high explosives with maybe a little fertilizer damped
around them."
The Oklahoma City bombing has earned the
nickname "Mannlicher-Carcano Bomb," after the cheap Italian-made rifle with
a defective scope that was allegedly used to kill President Kennedy.
Attorney Jim Garrison joked that the
governments nuclear physics laboratory could explain how a single bullet
could travel through President Kennedy & Governor Connally five times while
making several U-turns, then turns up in pristine condition (an event that
no firearms expert in the world has ever been able to duplicate) on a
hospital gurney.
In the Oklahoma bombing case it seems the government is attempting to
perform a similar feat of light and magic.
The fact is that a non-directional, low velocity
4800 pound ANFO bomb, parked 20-30 feet from a modern steel-reinforced
super-structure could never have caused the pattern or degree of damage that
they say it did.
