Photographic evidence for skeptics to ponder

Turley

Today is the 10th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and what happened may be revealed in photographs found in links below:

"But should we really take on faith what we are told by American government leaders and the likes of The Washington Post when it comes to shadowy political bombings? An Associated Press of the effects of the Beirut http://www.dcdave.com/article4/Hariri.JPG published in that same issue of The Washington Post, on page A14 suggests very strongly that we should not. Notice the damage that was done to the building that faces the street where the bomb exploded, leaving a massive crater. The entire façade of the building is stripped away, but all the support columns remain standing. The same thing occurred when the Khobar Towers http://www.dcdave.com/article4/Khobar_Towers.jpg building, housing U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia, was bombed.

"Recall now that the United States government and the American news media want us to believe that a similar bomb out in the street in front of the building caused all the damage to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. But as we look at that damage, we see that a large section of the Murrah Building was gouged out, http://www.dcdave.com/article4/Murrah1.jpg caused by the collapse of not just front row support columns, but by others farther back in the building. The collapsing columns, as we can see from the photograph, were also considerably farther from the street blast than were several others.'

End of excerpt from article at http://www.dcdave.com/article4/050221.htm

KCF

Turley wrote:

Today is the 10th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and what happened may be revealed in photographs found in links below:

"But should we really take on faith what we are told by American government leaders and the likes of The Washington Post when it comes to shadowy political bombings? An Associated Press of the effects of the Beirut http://www.dcdave.com/article4/Hariri.JPG published in that same issue of The Washington Post, on page A14 suggests very strongly that we should not. Notice the damage that was done to the building that faces the street where the bomb exploded, leaving a massive crater. The entire façade of the building is stripped away, but all the support columns remain standing. The same thing occurred when the Khobar Towers http://www.dcdave.com/article4/Khobar_Towers.jpg building, housing U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia, was bombed.

"Recall now that the United States government and the American news media want us to believe that a similar bomb out in the street in front of the building caused all the damage to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. But as we look at that damage, we see that a large section of the Murrah Building was gouged out, http://www.dcdave.com/article4/Murrah1.jpg caused by the collapse of not just front row support columns, but by others farther back in the building. The collapsing columns, as we can see from the photograph, were also considerably farther from the street blast than were several others.'

End of excerpt from article at http://www.dcdave.com/article4/050221.htm

This has got to be the stupidest thing to have been posted here in my time - and the competition isn't exactly weak.

While I do believe that there was some shadiness in the investigation of the oklahoma bombing, I am sane enough to recognise absolute crap when I see it.

DC Dave apparently believes that since 2 bomb blasts in different parts of the world produced similarly patterned collapsing on 2 different buildings, therefore all bombs, in all parts of the world should produce similar collapsing on all buildings. This is apparently an iron law of building bombing and is independent of the type of bomb, its orientation to the building, its distance from the building, the construction material of the building, any objects between the bomb and the building, etc, etc, etc. DC Dave considers this to be proof.

Turley considers DC Dave to be a more credible source than the entirety of mainsteam media and to have much more expertise than every construction and demolition engineer in the world, who have somehow missed the proof.

delly

What a load of toss.

If your some form of buildings engineer who has had years of experience than maybe you make things like this make sense. But other than that its a case of looking at one picture and comparing it to another.

robindch

> This has got to be the stupidest thing to have
> been posted here in my time

Ohhhh, I wouldn't say that! Frankly, I reckon the biscuit was well and truly taken when Turley claimed that the televising of the WTC attacks was equivalent to a soap-powder ad

Anyone on for composing some dcdave-style doggerel "In memoriam Oklahoma"?

- robin.

Turley

KCF wrote:

therefore all bombs, in all parts of the world should produce similar collapsing on all buildings.

Where has anyone made this claim? You have made absurd statement and then you refute it. No one has said ALL bombs produce similar results.

Turley

delly wrote:

What a load of toss.

If your some form of buildings engineer who has had years of experience than maybe you make things like this make sense. But other than that its a case of looking at one picture and comparing it to another.

Three buildings are damaged by "truck bombs." The damage in two instances is remarkably similar with only the face of the building blown away and a crater in beside the building. In the third instance, also a truck bomb, there is no crater and the building columns are destroyed. Similar bombs adjacent to buidings, not inside, might result in similar damage. This was true at Khobar and Beirut. Why should Oklahoma different?

I asked this question in the sincere interest of truth. I did not begin a discussion in order to make fun of others or call people names. Can the clever Irish skeptics merely think of some names to call me or sophomoric ways to poke fun at me personally? Is this a demonstration of ISS logical thinking?

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Three buildings are damaged by "truck bombs."

You see this is what I am talking about when I say people making assumptions who don't know what they are talking about (I don't mean you, I mean the orignal article).

"Truck bomb" means a bomb in a truck. The type of bomb, chemicals used and its explosive power can be wildly different. Because two bombs are transported in a truck means nothing. A nuclear "dirty bomb" could be a truck bomb

The Khobar tower bombing was a fuel truck that exploded. The Oklahom bombing was a bomb made of a cocktail of fertiliser, racing car fuel and ammonium nitrate, and would have produced a much more powerful blast than the fuel truck in Khobar. Also the truck itself would have dampened the blast at khobar, where in Oklahoma the Ryder truck would have had very little effect in containing the blast.

Poisonwood

Similar bombs adjacent to buidings, not inside, might result in similar damage. This was true at Khobar and Beirut. Why should Oklahoma different?

I asked this question in the sincere interest of truth.

Thankfully Wicknight provided the searingly obvious answer to this worringly silly question!! Turley, with your mind so fixed on conspiracy you're beginning to lose basic thinking skills.

davros

Yet another American conspiracy story. At this stage, it's just trolling. We all know exactly where it's going to go... what's the point? I'm going to save everyone a little wear on their eyes...