19/4/1995

estebancambias

Terry Nicholls has maintained that there was a CIA member assisting Tim McVeigh with the bombing of the Federal Murah building. Now on first thought, and judging by his not so sane(but for some reason free) brother(see Bowling Columbine), this would appear to be the ramblings of a ****ed up degenirate, but many have claimed that the size of the blast of the explosives Tim McVeigh used did not coincide with the damage caused.

Galen Winsor, a man with over 40 years experience with weapons, maintains that a neutron bomb would have been needed to cause the damage, and not some half-assed fertiliser bomb.

Now, if an American goverment conspiracy seems to much to handle, surely the Al-Queda had some sort of involvement, or not. I heard they had opened a case in court about whether outside involvement was used, but I have yet to hear further information.

So discuss.

A_Fitz

Ya, have read about this before, and sounds, to me at least, like there was some kind of involvement by government/CIA/black ops etc.

The Bomb Squad were supposedly standing by down there for the previous few days, just by some 'coincedence'. Can't remember much more of the details but something wasn't right with it anyway.

Of course we'll have the doubters now who'll say that's complete rubbish.



some info here about it for you http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/okla.html

estebancambias

Great read. Thanks.

humanji

Well, at the risk of being labelled a "paid debunker", :rolleyes: is there any proof offered on this?? I don't know any of the details of the case, other than McVeigh was nabbed for it, and a lot of what is on that page is dubious (and considering it's a page that promotes the conspiracy, it can hardly be trusted).

Just wondering if there are any of the official evidence, documents or an accurate timeline available that'll save me trawling through endless conspiracy pages?

estebancambias

I doubt it, to be honest I think this is one of the easier cases to explain, but there is questions. The very fact that the brought it up in congress shows there is some merit.

mike65

Why would the federal government or an arm of it, feel the need to blow up an admin building in Oklahoma rather than say New York/Washington/LA all of which would give better value? Why not go for the Superbowl or LAX to spead fear and panic?

btw Ammonium nitrate makes an exellent big-bang bomb just add aluminium

Aluminised mixtures are very effective under confinement, as in underwater demolition, torpedoes, and rock blasting.

Mike.

Dirty Dave

estebancambias wrote:

Terry Nicholls has maintained that there was a CIA member assisting Tim McVeigh with the bombing of the Federal Murah building. Now on first thought, and judging by his not so sane(but for some reason free) brother(see Bowling Columbine), this would appear to be the ramblings of a ****ed up degenirate, but many have claimed that the size of the blast of the explosives Tim McVeigh used did not coincide with the damage caused.

Galen Winsor, a man with over 40 years experience with weapons, maintains that a neutron bomb would have been needed to cause the damage, and not some half-assed fertiliser bomb.

Now, if an American goverment conspiracy seems to much to handle, surely the Al-Queda had some sort of involvement, or not. I heard they had opened a case in court about whether outside involvement was used, but I have yet to hear further information.

So discuss.

First off I'd like to point out that I have very little experience with explosives.

However, it was NOT a Neutron bomb. For the following reasons:

1. A Neutron bomb is a nuclear bomb designed to have a smaller explosion than a normal nuclear bomb, but have a similar radioactive output. In other words, its a radiation bomb aimed at wiping out the human population, but keeping most of the infrastructure intact. (Reduced blast radius, but still a hell of a lot more powerful then what happened in Oklahoma)

2. If a neutron bomb went off that day, most of the people in the city would have died within about 2 weeks (Radiation poisoning).

3. If a neutron bomb went off that day, much of the city would have been destroyed.

Jocksereire

i have no idea what kind of bomb was used. I have set of a fertiliser bomb myself a few months ago for the craic but i doubt very much a fertiliser bomb could do so much damage as what was done on that day.
Dave have you ever seen a nuetron bomb go off or how much damage it causes? Or do you know how much radiation it gives off? I havent and i dont know so i cant say what it was or it wasnt. Also i have no idea what kind of weaponery the US military have which is not disclosed to the public so the speculation could go on all day.

whiterebel

Fertilizer bombs have been used extensively in the UK, most notable in Manchester and the Canary Wharf bombings, amongst others. Its cheap to make and used by quarries, mines etc for its power and ease of manufacture. Certainly not inconceivable for it to be AnFo, although I was a little surprised that the suggested quantity was only 6 tons. I think Manchester was 12 tons and Canary Wharf, which caused £1B of damage was 20 tons, if I remember correctly. The initial bombing of the WTC in 93 was supposed to have been within 6 feet of bringing the whole lot down, if it had been placed correctly up against one of the support pillars, and again, that wasn't the biggest bomb.
In a lot of cases it is correct placement, rather than volume which does the damage.

Jocksereire

Came across this
http://www.okcbombing.net

Dirty Dave

Jocksereire wrote:

i have no idea what kind of bomb was used. I have set of a fertiliser bomb myself a few months ago for the craic but i doubt very much a fertiliser bomb could do so much damage as what was done on that day.
Dave have you ever seen a nuetron bomb go off or how much damage it causes? Or do you know how much radiation it gives off? I havent and i dont know so i cant say what it was or it wasnt. Also i have no idea what kind of weaponery the US military have which is not disclosed to the public so the speculation could go on all day.

From Wikipedia:

A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb (ER weapon), is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape.

Neutron bombs have low yields compared with other nuclear weapons. This is because neutrons are absorbed by air, so a high yielding neutron bomb would not be able to radiate neutrons beyond its blast range and so would have no practical advantage over a normal hydrogen bomb. Note that using the explosive yield of a neutron weapon to measure its destructive power can be deceptive: most of the injuries caused by a neutron weapon come from ionising radiation, not from heat and blast.

In other words, a nuetron bomb is a Nuclear bomb - it only has 10% of the destructive force, but all of the radiation. To suggest that a nuclear weapon was used in Oklahoma is ridiculous. Why hasnt anybody died of radiation poisoning?

So even IF (which I doubt) the US government has nuclear weapons capable of such a teeny tiny explosive yield and which manage not to poison the whole area with radiation:

1) What is their motivation for blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma? Dont say fear. Please. They didnt bring in any draconian freedom reducing laws after Oklahoma.

2) Why would they use what is presumably a very expensive top secret nuclear weapon when a home made fertiliser bomb hidden in a truck would do? Why would they even spend the money developing such a weapon when its cheaper and easier to get the same results from home made explosives which aren't anywhere near as powerful or useful as existing military grade explosives like C4?

And by the way, what the hell are you doing setting off fertiliser bombs "for the craic"? Does it make you feel like a big man when you perform incredibly dangerous and illegal acts?

Jocksereire

Dirty Dave wrote:

.

(which I doubt)

and there is the problem. You can doubt what weapons they do and dont have all you want. You nor anyone else here knows for sure so basing an arguement on what you doubt is pointless. as i said the speculation can go on all day.

1) What is their motivation for blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma? Dont say fear. Please. They didnt bring in any draconian freedom reducing laws after Oklahoma.

They did bring in new laws after that bomb.

2) Why would they use what is presumably a very expensive top secret nuclear weapon when a home made fertiliser bomb hidden in a truck would do? Why would they even spend the money developing such a weapon when its cheaper and easier to get the same results from home made explosives which aren't anywhere near as powerful or useful as existing military grade explosives like C4?

Again as i just stated, yuo do not know how much any of the weapons cost, and if it did resemble a fertiliser bomb thats EXACTLY why they would use it. Who is going to believe that some guy built a highly sophisticated bomb other than a fertiliser bomb?
Cant believe you asked that to be honest.
And as i said already i am not saying it was a "neutron" bomb as i dont know what it was. But a fertiliser bomb which blows away half a building?

And by the way, what the hell are you doing setting off fertiliser bombs "for the craic"? Does it make you feel like a big man when you perform incredibly dangerous and illegal acts?

And by the way you know nothing of the circumstances why i did that. I did it in a mining area in Bolivia where it is PERFECTLY LEGAL and done every day by tourists visiting there. Now wind your neck in and mind your own business. "big man " indeed :rolleyes:

bonkey

estebancambias wrote:

T
Galen Winsor, a man with over 40 years experience with weapons, maintains that a neutron bomb would have been needed to cause the damage, and not some half-assed fertiliser bomb.

Here is a reference to a peer-reviewed paper, by relevant experts, which analysed the damage and worked backwards to calculate the approximate blast-force.

What does Mr. Winsor offer in contrast? Does he explain why these figures are wrong? Does anyone who questions the source of the explosion offer a critique of this work, to explain why the equivalent of apprximately 4000lbs of TNT would be inusfficient?

As an aside, it should be pointed out that when Mr. Winsor claims 40 years experience in weapons, his background is that of a nuclear physicist. Thus, at best, he has over 40 years experience with nuclear weapons. How this qualifies him to state what a non-nuclear weapon's capabilities are, I don't know.

whiterebel

I know its a long time ago, but Oppenheimer et al learned a lot of what they knew about explosive reactions from conventional explosives such as the Port Chicago explosion and after the war, the City of Texas explosion which involved Ammonium Nitrate.

MooseJam

whiterebel wrote:

although I was a little surprised that the suggested quantity was only 6 tons. I think Manchester was 12 tons and Canary Wharf, which caused £1B of damage was 20 tons, if I remember correctly.

those bomb sizes are way off, the Manchester bomb was 3000 lbs - 1.5 tonnes
and the Canary wharf bomb was similar - a few thousand pounds

whiterebel

MooseJam wrote:

those bomb sizes are way off, the Manchester bomb was 3000 lbs - 1.5 tonnes
and the Canary wharf bomb was similar - a few thousand pounds

These were figures given by the British Army at a weapons and explosives course last year.

MooseJam

whiterebel wrote:

These were figures given by the British Army at a weapons and explosives course last year.

maybe the guy was mistaken, if you can remember the vehicle used in the canary wharf bomb was a flat bed truck, the bomb was hidden in the hollowed out bed, it would be impossible to store 20 tonnes in such a vehicle

Mahatma coat

I thought it was a curtainsider, I remember it was bigger than a Transit that time cos I remember thinkin 'bout time they started using proper sized trucks'

still tho accordin to some sources ya can get about 3 times the carryin capacity of a transit in the back if you have no intention of driving it again, so a curtainsider would work, a straight Flatbed wouldnt tho obviously

whiterebel

The "beauty" of AnFo is that if you mix it correctly, it looks like sand. Pack it into sandbags and a cursory examination wouldn't show the difference. TBH, there isn't much space in the chassis/body of a flatbed to hide even 1500 kilos.
That course by the way, the guys who run it have access to info about all bombings - they make one up as close as possible to the original device and then explode it to see how it works, stability, blast results etc. I'd certainly go with their estimations, as the only place I saw 1500Kg mentioned was on the news sites. If you look at the links for Oklahoma, the FBI way under calculated the original estimate of the explosion, and I'd say they're still short.