The Opinions of General Partin and Other Bomb Experts

created 26/05/2003 - 13:38, updated 26/05/2003 - 13:38 by cybe
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend"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."

The Opinions of General Partin and Other Bomb Experts

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" (Published by Feral House) 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.

 

 

( categories: )

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Rob's picture

Uh huh

For 8' vertically of exposed column, 18" wide, 375 p.s.i. blast pressure would produce a total force on the column of 648,000 pounds. A continuous load this high would definitely buckle a column. Further, as recorded on the program "Conspiracy Test" the blast pressures recorded from a similar explosion at a similar distance were much higher than 375 p.s.i.
Anonymous's picture

It's more complex than

It's more complex than considering only the initial blast wave effect directly on a column. Horizontal slabs can be lifted up by the blast and then fall back onto the columns, jolting them and buckling them. Those other scenarios need to be addressed.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account associated with the e-mail address you provide, it will be used to display your avatar.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
9 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Syndicate content