Did the US Government practice demolition prior to 9/11?

[Ezlivin]

The number of questions surrounding the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City includes several about the nature of the explosives used. Many demolition experts have come out against the single-bomb ANFO theory and have instead claimed that the damage could have only been caused by multiple explosives placed inside the building.

In early 1997, Wright Laboratory at Elgin Air Force Base in Florida constructed a concrete, steel-reinforced structure that was similar to the Murrah Building, and then did a series of explosions to test bomb effects. The Air Force structure was not nearly as structurally as sound as the Murrah Building, and the bombs used against it were more powerful than a 4,800 pound ANFO bomb. Minimal damage was done to the structure. Afterwards, the Air Force released a 56-page report that was entitled Case Study Relating Blast Effects to the Events of April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The report, which included an extensive technical analysis that the Air Force commissioned from construction and demolition expert John Culberston, concluded that ". . . it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO . . . It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah 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 . . ."

What did the government learn through this testing?

And could this knowledge have been applied in the WTC destruction?

[LARED]

1. Wow, right from the mouth of The New American and

William Jasper to the 9/11 dungeon of DU.

I find the level of far right-wing kookery finding its way down here to be a bit unsettling.

[Ezlivin]

2. Good morning, Lared! You've got the morning watch, eh?

This was just a test of the government monitoring system.

[LARED]

3. LOL I guess the gigs up.

But I think you got it wrong. The government monitoring systems should love the right-wing stuff from the New American and say nothing.

[dailykoff]

4. You have to wonder.

A year ago, I would have been disinclined to doubt the FBI's account of the Murrah collapse, but then I realized what happened at the Trade Center, and now the fertilizer story sounds pretty miraculous. But I haven't really looked into it.

[philb]

5. there seems to be considerable support for the case that a truck bomb did

not do much of the damage seen at the Murrah Building; and a lot seems to be known about things that
happened there and people involved that has never gotten much public/media attention.

if you google search for key words like: oklahoma city bombing murrah
you will find lots of interesting research and information

[hack89]

6. "considerable support" - suuuure

I think you need to prove that particular assertion. I would venture a guess is merely another fringe CT.

[philb]

7. Do you know of anyone whose done a lot of research on the O. C. bombing

who thinks that the story that was told to the public was anything close to what actually happened?
that there weren't people involved who have not been disclosed?

[hack89]

8. I am ready to be educated ...please go on

are we talking real research or google research?

[Ouabache]

9. what? google research is not real research?

nt

[hack89]

10. Not as it is commonly used in this forum. nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.