Time: Sat Jul 12 05:46:22 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA08841; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 05:13:40 -0700 (MST) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA07403; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 05:13:25 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 05:13:10 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: U.S. Air Force Confirms Multiple Blasts (OKC) (fwd) <snip> > >U.S. AIR FORCE CONFIRMS MULTIPLE BLASTS (OKC) >by William F. Jasper, President, John Birch Society > >A new study analyzing explosive tests conducted by the U.S. Air Force against >a reinforced concrete structure may provide an important key to understanding >the April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, >which took 168 lives. The report, based on testing data and photographs >supplied by the Armament Directorate, Wright Laboratory at Eglin Air Force >Base in Florida, lends powerful support to the arguments of those experts who >have challenged the >official government position that a single, large ammonium nitrate/fuel oil >(ANFO) truck bomb parked outside the Murrah Building was solely responsible >for the massive death and destruction. > >Led by Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, ret.), former director of >the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory and one of the world's premier >explosives and ordnance authorities, critics have argued compellingly that >the blast wave from the ANFO truck bomb was totally inadequate to cause the >collapse of the massive, >steel-reinforced concrete columns of the federal building in Oklahoma City. >This fact, together with much other forensic evidence from the crime scene, >they contend, points inescapably to the conclusion that additional demolition >charges had to have been placed on columns inside the building. Which means >that this terror bombing was a much more sophisticated operation than the >federal authorities admit, requiring more hands, brains, and brawn than any >lone bomber could supply. If that is true, the other bombers are being let >off the hook by the government's insistence that Timothy McVeigh was the sole >efficient cause and the truck bomb was the instrumental cause of "the >deadliest terrorist attack on American soil." > >The new Eglin blast study convincingly proves the fundamental points set >forth by General Partin: That air blast is an inefficient mechanism against >hardened, reinforced concrete structures, and that "the pattern of damage [to >the Murrah Building] would have been technically impossible without >supplementing demolition charges." Entitled Case Study Relating Blast Effects >to the Events of April 19, 1995 Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma >City, Oklahoma, (hereafter referred to as the Eglin Blast Effects Study, or >EBES), the 56-page report includes photographs and data from the Eglin blast >tests, as well as extensive technical analysis of those tests, conducted by >construction and demolition expert John Culbertson. The study relates the >Eglin parametric data to the Murrah Building and presents a serious challenge >to the federal prosecutors' official bombing scenario. The report also >ontains letters from engineers and technical experts who have reviewed the >study for The New American. > >The blast effects tests conducted by the Wright Laboratory at Eglin Air Force >Base involved a three-story reinforced concrete structure 80 feet in length, >40 feet in width, and a total height of 30 feet. The Eglin Test Structure >(ETS), according to the EBES, "while not as large as the Alfred P. Murrah >Building in Oklahoma City, has many >similarities and therefore provides an excellent source for data." The study >continues: > > The ETS is similar to Murrah in its basic layout with three rows of >columns > in the long axis and a series of narrow bays in the short axis. The ETS >was > constructed of six-inch-thick concrete panels similar to the >six-inch-thick > floor panels of Murrah. In addition, a series of 14-inch square columns > supported the panels in the corners of each room and at the edge of the > floor panels. This configuration bears a similarity to the Murrah >building's > system of columns, T-beams and floor panels. > >While noting the similarities in structural layout of the ETS and Murrah, the >EBES also makes note of the major differences in construction methods and >overall structural integrity between the two buildings, stating that the ETS >"must be considered an inferior structure in terms of strength and blast >resistance," and that >the ETS "is actually more indicative of some structures to be found in third >world countries and is not representative of concrete structures to be found >in the United States." The Murrah Building's floor panels were reinforced >"with approximately five times the amount of steel" used in the Eglin >structure's panels. An even greater contrast is found in the columns and >beams, where "the steel fill in the Murrah Building was much higher than the >ETS, in most cases by a factor of 10 or more." The study also observes that >"while the ETS did not use stirrups in its columns and beams, the Murrah >Federal Building did, thereby increasing strength to a level far above the >ETS." > >Additionally, the ETS lacked a roof panel, which "reduces the overall >rigidity of the structure, and in particular the third story wall panels, >making the third story more susceptible to damage from an explosive device." >Finally, since concrete develops strength with time, the relatively fresh >concrete of the ETS must be considered >weaker than the mature strength of the Murrah Building's concrete. > >All of the foregoing is of particular significance since, as the Air force >tests demonstrated, air blast alone was singularly ineffective in causing >major damage to the ETS. And if air blast could not effect catastrophic >failure to the decidedly inferior Eglin structure, it becomes all the more >difficult to believe that it was responsible for >the destruction of the much stronger Murrah Building. > >Three different explosives tests were conducted on the Eglin Test Structure. >The first test used 704 pounds of Tritonal, which is equivalent to 830 pounds >of TNT, or roughly 2,200 pounds of a properly prepared ammonium nitrate/fuel >oil (ANFO) mixture. The Tritonal was contained in a light aluminum case and >was placed outside the structure at ground level 25 feet from the vertical >surface of the 40-foot side wall. This test most closely parallels the truck >bomb at the Murrah Building and provides important parametric data for >assessing blast-wave damage at the Oklahoma City site. Besides being external >to the ETS, the aluminum casing provided a container similar to the light >shell of the Ryder truck. Like the truck bomb, the Tritonal test attempted to >effect damage to the concrete structure with an air-couple blast wave without >the help of heavy shrapnel. > >By contrast, the second and third tests used steel-cased warheads detonated >inside the ETS. The second test used a standard Mk-82 warhead (equivalent to >180 pounds of TNT) placed within the first floor corner room approximately >four feet from the exterior wall. The third test involved a 250-pound >penetrating warhead (having an >equivalent explosive weight of 35 pounds TNT) which was placed in the corner >of a second floor room approximately two and a half feet from the adjoining >walls. As the photographs from Wright Laboratory graphically show, these two >explosive devices, although much smaller than the Tritonal device, effected >far greater damage to the ETS. This disproportionate destruction was largely >a function of three critical factors: distance, mechanical coupling of the >blast wave, mechanical coupling via shrapnel, and contained pressure (due to >being confined within the structure). > >As General Partin has taken great pains to emphasize, the inefficiency of a >blast wave through air is dramatic, particularly outdoors, where the blast >energy is dissipated in all directions with its pressure and destructive >force falling off more rapidly than an inverse function of the distance cubed >(distance expressed in radius >units). This means that the blast wave from an explosive device which yields >a maximum blast pressure of one-and-a-half million pounds per square inch at >the center of the device will have dropped off to under 200 pounds per square >inch by the time it has traveled 20 radii. This makes air blast alone very >ineffective against hardened concrete structures, such as heavy, >steel-reinforced columns. > >The photograph from Wright Laboratory of the first test involving the >external Tritonal explosion confirms this very important principle of blast >effects. The six-inch-thick concrete wall panels on the first floor were >demolished by the air blast, though the reinforcing steel bars were for the >most part left in place. The 14-inch columns remained unaffected either by >the blast pressure wave or the stresses produced by the pull of the >reinforcing steel in the wall panels as they broke up. Damage to the second >floor wall panels is considerably less than that to the first floor walls, >and very little damage can be seen to the third floor wall panels, even >though there is no ceiling to provide stability. > >A detailed pressure map matrix for the entire vertical face of the ETS was >prepared for the EBES, providing a one-foot grid which gives the maximum >potential blast pressures for any given point on the face. According to the >pressure map, the vertical face in the first test experienced a range of >maximum blast pressure from 34 psi (pounds per square inch) to 174 psi (page >32). Maximum blast pressure on the >six-inch-thick wall panels for the first floor ranged from 74 psi to 174 psi. >Wall panels on the second floor had a maximum blast pressure ranging from 53 >psi to 141 psi. The third-floor panels had blast pressures of 34 psi to 84 >psi, yet experienced no damage even though a significant portion of the >panels was subjected to pressures exceeding the 70 psi yield factor for the >six-inch-thick walls. > >Computing the blast pressure for the Ryder truck's estimated 4,800-pound ANFO >bomb, the EBES determines that the radius from the center of the device that >would manifest a pressure of 70 psi or more would be 42.37 feet. It can >therefore be expected, explains the study, that within a radius of 42.37 feet >from the center of the explosive, any six-inch reinforced concrete panel >positioned so as to have a major face perpendicular or nearly perpendicular >to the travel path of the blast pressure wave from the explosion would be >damaged. The study notes that the floor >panels in the Murrah Building were of the same thickness as the ETS panels >and, starting with the third floor, had a similar positional relationship to >the device as the panels in the Eglin test. Accordingly, the EBES found: A >limited area of the third and fourth floors of the Murrah Federal Building >immediately adjacent to the position of the Ryder truck would be affected. On >the third floor a roughly circular shape extending into the building and >approximately 40 feet down the north face of the building from the center >point of the explosive, which was located some 14.5 feet north of the north >face of the building. This circular area contained approximately 1,250 square >feet of six-inch panel.... The fourth floor panel that experienced 70 psi and >above was limited to a roughly circular-shaped pattern of approximately 400 >square feet. > >The conclusions of the Eglin Blast Effects Study are compelling and carry >stunning implications. With the ETS having significantly less integral >strength than the Murrah Building, the EBES conclusions have a built-in >margin of error that, if anything, overstate the extent of damage to be >expected at the Murrah Building. Moreover, the >computations for the Ryder truck bomb also are overly generous. Because ANFO >is also a low-energy explosive (approximately 30% that of TNT) and due to the >inherent inefficiency of eight barrels forming the explosive assembly >[according to the government's estimates], it is doubtful that the device >produced blast pressures close to the calculated maximum potential blast >pressure, the study asserts. This being the case, it is doubtful that the >radius of damage even approached the 42.37 foot range as calculated herein. > > Finally, the EBES concludes: > > Due to these conditions, it is impossible to ascribe the damage that > occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. > of ANFO. In fact, the maximum predicted damage to the floor panels of > the Murrah Federal Building is equal to approximately 1% of the total > floor area of the building. Furthermore, due to the lack of >symmetrical > damage pattern at the Murrah Building, it would be inconsistent with the > > results of the ETS test [number] one to state that all of the damage to > the Murrah Building is the result of the truck bomb. > > The damage to the Murrah Federal Building is consistent with damage > resulting from mechanically coupled devices placed locally within the > structure.... > > It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is > not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors > > such as locally placed charges within the building itself.... The >procedures > used to cause the damage to the Murrah Building are therefore more > involved and complex than simply parking a truck and leaving.... > >Mike Smith, a civil engineer in Cartersville, Georgia commissioned to review >the Eglin Blast Effects Study, states: > >The results of the Blast Effect Test One on the Eglin Test Structure present >strong evidence that a single Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil device of >approximately 4800 lbs. placed inside a truck could not have caused the >damage to the Murrah federal Building experienced on April 19, 1995. Even >assuming that the building had structural deficiencies and that the ANFO >device was constructed with racing fuel, the air-coupled blast produced from >this 4800 lb. device would not have damaged the columns and beams of the >Murrah Building enough to produce a catastrophic failure. > >Robert Frias, president of Frias Engineering of Arlington, Texas, after >examining the EBES, concluded: The Murrah Building would still be standing >and the upper floors would be intact had the truck loaded with explosives >been the only culprit. Moreover, Frias, a practicing engineer for over 40 >years and a registered engineer in >Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana, stated: Explosives had to have been placed >near, or on, the structural columns inside the building to cause the collapse >that occurred to the Murrah Building. > >Likewise, Alvin Norberg, a licensed professional engineer in Auburn, >California with over 50 years of engineering experience on over 5,000 >construction projects, writes that evidence from the ETS data verifies that >the severe structural damage to the Murrah Building was not caused by a truck >bomb outside the building, and that the collapse of the Murrah Federal >Building was the result of mechanically coupled devices (bombs) placed >locally within the structure adjacent to the critical columns. > >Kenneth Gow of Whittier, California, with over one-half century of >engineering experience in the aerospace industry, writes in his evaluation of >the EBES: The Eglin Test Structure report ... further reinforces the >conclusion that a substantial portion of the Murrah Building damage was by >internal explosions. > ========================= > > The full EBES report is available for $25.00 postpaid from > The New American, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913. > from <http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/OK/multibla.html > > \\\\|//// > ( o o ) > --oO0o------U------oO0o--- > "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > SAFAN %Dot Bibee (SafanNews@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 > SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on http://feustel.mixi.net > and http://members.aol.com/Safan1 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail