"running with scissors" <aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:d0fe9d08.0403121151.317636f1@posting.google.com...
"copertopkiller" <coppertop@killer.net> wrote in message
news:<Mcb4c.12600$CW1.3658810@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
agent86@justicemail.com> wrote in message
news:be225050k0031mncrvptlhtml98c17ssev@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:39:05 -0700, "khobar" <pnixon18@cox.net> wrote:


There wasn't a building across the street, Jason. What an idiot
troll.

While the second part of your assertion above is fitting, I believe
it
*might* be helpful if you would clarify the statement "There wasn't a
building across the street" because the photo here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html does
show a
building across the parking lot. It's entirely possible the photo was
taken
with a long lens, and the fact that the angle is from behind that
building
does nothing to help show the damage to that building.

Obviously, "across the street" is subject to interpretation, but to
say
there was no building across the street is inaccurate. Or was that
intentional? :-)

No, it was not inaccurate. You just said that the picture you cite
shows a building ACROSS THE PARKING LOT. There was no building
directly across of 5th Street from the bomb location. There was a
parking lot. Beyond the parking lot, there was the Journal Record
building. Even it, at its distance from the bomb, suffered
significant damage with most of the windows blown out and the roof
blown off.

Here's another site with pictures:

http://members.cox.net/reconokc/bomb/

and here's some material from a previous post of mine dated 4/7/1997.
snip

Which photo shows this?

grief you are fucking stupid. it took about 3 seconds to see which
one. theres even a photo of the building FROM the partially destroyed
building.

jesus wept.

wheres the link to this to this specific photo ass munch?

jesus wants to fucking whistle....

"running with scissors" <aabbcc_running_with_scissors@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:d0fe9d08.0403121151.317636f1@posting.google.com...
"copertopkiller" <coppertop@killer.net> wrote in message
news:<Mcb4c.12600$CW1.3658810@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
agent86@justicemail.com> wrote in message
news:be225050k0031mncrvptlhtml98c17ssev@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:39:05 -0700, "khobar" <pnixon18@cox.net> wrote:


There wasn't a building across the street, Jason. What an idiot
troll.

While the second part of your assertion above is fitting, I believe
it
*might* be helpful if you would clarify the statement "There wasn't a
building across the street" because the photo here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html does
show a
building across the parking lot. It's entirely possible the photo was
taken
with a long lens, and the fact that the angle is from behind that
building
does nothing to help show the damage to that building.

Obviously, "across the street" is subject to interpretation, but to
say
there was no building across the street is inaccurate. Or was that
intentional? :-)

No, it was not inaccurate. You just said that the picture you cite
shows a building ACROSS THE PARKING LOT. There was no building
directly across of 5th Street from the bomb location. There was a
parking lot. Beyond the parking lot, there was the Journal Record
building. Even it, at its distance from the bomb, suffered
significant damage with most of the windows blown out and the roof
blown off.

Here's another site with pictures:

http://members.cox.net/reconokc/bomb/

and here's some material from a previous post of mine dated 4/7/1997.
snip

Which photo shows this?

grief you are fucking stupid. it took about 3 seconds to see which
one. theres even a photo of the building FROM the partially destroyed
building.

jesus wept.

wheres the link to this to this specific photo ass munch?

jesus wants to fucking whistle....

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:39:05 -0700, "khobar" <pnixon18@cox.net> wrote:

agent86@justicemail.com> wrote in message
news:rmgv40d49u279snohb02qvrf570k2gu5gk@4ax.com...

Because there wasn't a building on the other side of the street,
Jason.

Also the 26th photo in the presentation shows the parking lot.
Also:
http://members.tripod.com/~Tabler01/OKCBombing.html


Zzzz.




You do know you can't shape a truck bomb charge, right?

Who said it was shaped?


Check out the asymmetrical blast pattern.

It's not asymmetrical. Overhead photos available at the time showed
a
nice round pattern, centered on the truck bomb.

Cite?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/08/national/main587332.shtml

Choose the interactive link on the right side of the page, then
"photo essay" and then the first photo. You can see the crater and
clearly see the circular blast pattern of the bomb. You can see the
damage to the corner of the Athenian Grill building where two people
were killed. You can see that there was no building directly across
the street from the bomb.

Must have been a huge secondary explosion then, right?

Nope,, same one - debris tends to fly and hit things, you
know...


Right...

So why no exploding cars?

Who said that there was no exploding cars?

The damage on the Murrah side far exceeds the damage across the
street.
Explain.

There wasn't anything across the street, Jason.

I thought it was a parking lot?

There wasn't a building across the street, Jason. What an idiot
troll.

While the second part of your assertion above is fitting, I believe it
*might* be helpful if you would clarify the statement "There wasn't a
building across the street" because the photo here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html does show a
building across the parking lot. It's entirely possible the photo was
taken
with a long lens, and the fact that the angle is from behind that
building
does nothing to help show the damage to that building.

Obviously, "across the street" is subject to interpretation, but to say
there was no building across the street is inaccurate. Or was that
intentional? :-)

The Journal Record Building is actually a considerable distance from
the Murrah Building, a good half-block from the bomb location.
Furthermore, the wall of the Journal Record Building that faced the
blast area is solid brick covering a reinforced concrete and steel
structure, broken only by windows on the upper floors. Basically,
it's a four-story brick wall. This buidling is a "tank" and despite
its extremely solid construction, it did suffer considerable
structural damage internally. There was some question as to whether
or not it could even be salvaged, and because of that, the Journal
Record (a financial newspaper) moved its offices to another building
further down Robinson. Fortunately, it was saved, and shored-up at
considerable expense - many of the conspiracy-minded might like to
know that the Journal Record Building, now the Oklahoma City Memorial
Center, was originally built in 1923 as - OH MY GAWD!!! - the Masonic
Temple.
The YMCA, which was even further away, was so badly damaged
internally that it was deemed unsalvageable and demolished. But, to
the casual observer, it looked fine - save for some busted windows.
Structural engineers reviewed the damage and it was given up as a lost
cause, even though there was a strong desire to save it because of its
rare "moderne" architectural style.

These people have no clue as to "Blast Pressure Wave Propagation Theory".

"Supernews is SuperSHIT" <spam@snuhco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94A8791EDF80Espamsnuhcocom@207.14.113.17...
"Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:zbI3c.4989$Kh5.3404@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:


"Supernews is SuperSHIT" <spam@snuhco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94A87212B85AEspamsnuhcocom@207.14.113.17...
Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:t94t401jtenc85bas62prm6tfsbrdgmk1t@4ax.com:

On 8 Mar 2004 00:43:19 GMT, Supernews is SuperSHIT
spam@snuhco.com> wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:3l9l401f3bkhdc8t3c1bkosp9es7qh4r44@4ax.com:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:30:26 -0000, "Step Three: Profit"
spam@snuhco.com> wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:rkoa40hg97n17tm3ebslj8kkm6ie1b85or@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:57:31 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
spam@snuhco.com> wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote
in news:gbe840doeha27t1r14todu2sr6sckck766@4ax.com:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:18:34 -0000, Swedish Scat Team
guh@buh.cuh
wrote:


*All* planes were grounded on 9/11, civilian, commercial
and
military.

A standdown.

Yes, you are absolutely right, Jason! I didn't see
Oklahoma
ANG
and
USAF aircraft operating over Oklahoma City on 9/11. You
remember Oklahoma City, don't you? You should, you tried
rearranging our entire downtown area about a year ago to
fit another of your
bullshit
conspiracies.


Is that why you spanked off and ran away?

Actually, that was you, after claiming the YMCA was
"across the
street" from the Murrah Building, amongst other lies. Do
try to
lay
off the smoke and keep your claims straight.


Tell us again how the 18 foot crater turned into a 28 foot
crater.

Explained ad nauseum.


Nope. Never.

Cite?

You already know where it is, you just deny what it says.


The only cite you can find costs money to read?



Why didn't the buildings across the street receive equal
damage?

There were no buildings directly across the street, all that
was
there was a parking lot.



And the cars were heavily damaged, as the building was?

You obviously know *nothing* about the building's
construction,
which I explained in another post, the upper floors collapsed
because the bomb took out the main transfer beam that held the
cantilevered floors, 3-9 - the damage you see on the upper
floors was caused by this, not a bomb tearing a hole in them.
Furthermore, the entire north face of the building was glass on
3-9, the shockwave alone shattered all of that. Hell, it blew
windows out on the upper floors of the 300' tall Bank of
Oklahoma Plaza two blocks south...


So it was strong enough to blow apart concrete columns from a
distance, but it didn't do the same thing across the street?



Why all the reports of other bombs?

Explained ad nauseum.

Weak lies.

Established fact.


You do know you can't easily mix diesel and fertilizer, and even
if you could, it wouldn't do anywhere near that much damage, don't
you?

--
If so, why is ANFO commonly used as an explosive for mining &
construction purposes?


Are they amateurs?

Nope. ANFO is the cheapest & considered the safest explosive to work
with in open pit mineing operations & construction activities where
large quantities of material must be moved.

Facts are a bear to deal with when they don't support your B/S spiarcy
theories.

A recent conversation contained this blurb:

So it was strong enough to blow apart concrete columns from a
distance, but it didn't do the same thing across the street?

What is the relationship between distance and the overpressure created
by an explosion?

Not a student of blast physics myself, I took the time to google up
some graphs which show this relationship. It appears to me that
overpressure decreases much more rapidly than distance increases. I'm
looking at a graph which appears to show a 5x increase in overpressure
over a 0.5y decrease in distance.

I assume that you have done this diligence, measured the two distances
implied by your question, and can show what effects the blast could be
expected to have at the two distances?

Thanks in advance.

"Supernews is SuperSHIT" <spam@snuhco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94A87930F2DACspamsnuhcocom@207.14.113.17...
"Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:zbI3c.4989$Kh5.3404@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:


"Supernews is SuperSHIT" <spam@snuhco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94A87212B85AEspamsnuhcocom@207.14.113.17...
Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:t94t401jtenc85bas62prm6tfsbrdgmk1t@4ax.com:

On 8 Mar 2004 00:43:19 GMT, Supernews is SuperSHIT
spam@snuhco.com> wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:3l9l401f3bkhdc8t3c1bkosp9es7qh4r44@4ax.com:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:30:26 -0000, "Step Three: Profit"
spam@snuhco.com> wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:rkoa40hg97n17tm3ebslj8kkm6ie1b85or@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:57:31 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
spam@snuhco.com> wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:gbe840doeha27t1r14todu2sr6sckck766@4ax.com:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:18:34 -0000, Swedish Scat Team
guh@buh.cuh
wrote:


*All* planes were grounded on 9/11, civilian, commercial
and
military.

A standdown.

Yes, you are absolutely right, Jason! I didn't see
Oklahoma
ANG
and
USAF aircraft operating over Oklahoma City on 9/11. You
remember Oklahoma City, don't you? You should, you tried
rearranging our entire downtown area about a year ago to
fit
another of your
bullshit
conspiracies.


Is that why you spanked off and ran away?

Actually, that was you, after claiming the YMCA was "across
the
street" from the Murrah Building, amongst other lies. Do try
to
lay
off the smoke and keep your claims straight.


Tell us again how the 18 foot crater turned into a 28 foot
crater.

Explained ad nauseum.


Nope. Never.

Cite?

You already know where it is, you just deny what it says.


The only cite you can find costs money to read?



Why didn't the buildings across the street receive equal
damage?

There were no buildings directly across the street, all that
was
there was a parking lot.



And the cars were heavily damaged, as the building was?

You obviously know *nothing* about the building's construction,
which I explained in another post, the upper floors collapsed
because the bomb took out the main transfer beam that held the
cantilevered floors, 3-9 - the damage you see on the upper floors
was caused by this, not a bomb tearing a hole in them.
Furthermore, the entire north face of the building was glass on
3-9, the shockwave alone shattered all of that. Hell, it blew
windows out on the upper floors of the 300' tall Bank of Oklahoma
Plaza two blocks south...


So it was strong enough to blow apart concrete columns from a
distance, but it didn't do the same thing across the street?



Why all the reports of other bombs?

Explained ad nauseum.

Weak lies.

Established fact.


You do know you can't easily mix diesel and fertilizer, and even if
you could, it wouldn't do anywhere near that much damage, don't
you?

--
If so, why is ANFO commonly used as an explosive for mining &
construction purposes?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA




And in the latest stories, it wasn't ANFO, anyway.

--
What do the "Latest Stories" report "it" to be, if it wasn't ANFO?
Ralph Nesbitt

But no equivalent damage across the street...?

How many times do you have to be told that there was nothing directly
across the street to be damaged?

On 10 Mar 2004 16:58:30 GMT, Supernews is SuperSHIT <spam@snuhco.com
wrote:


These photos, however, don't exist...

You're right, photos of dead people from airplane crashes are hard
to find, aren't they?

Do they exist?

You're the one who claimed that they did.

Try again.

Try what again, Jason?

However, most of the better pictures have long since been taken
down, but there are a few left. Here's one looking out on the
parking lot from inside the Murrah building (it's the third one
down): http://photos.newsok.com/bombing/

http://photos.newsok.com/bombing/images/10930.jpg

Unimpressive. Why the asymmetrical damage?

It isn't asymmetrical, Jason.



One side of the street has a destroyed building. The other side of the
street has nothing close to that sort of damage.

Because there wasn't a building on the other side of the street,
Jason.

Also the 26th photo in the presentation shows the parking lot.
Also:
http://members.tripod.com/~Tabler01/OKCBombing.html


Zzzz.




You do know you can't shape a truck bomb charge, right?

Who said it was shaped?


Check out the asymmetrical blast pattern.

It's not asymmetrical. Overhead photos available at the time showed
a nice round pattern, centered on the truck bomb.

Cite?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/08/national/main587332.shtml

Choose the interactive link on the right side of the page, then
"photo essay" and then the first photo. You can see the crater and
clearly see the circular blast pattern of the bomb. You can see the
damage to the corner of the Athenian Grill building where two people
were killed. You can see that there was no building directly across
the street from the bomb.

Must have been a huge secondary explosion then, right?

Nope,, same one - debris tends to fly and hit things, you
know...


Right...

So why no exploding cars?

Who said that there was no exploding cars?

The damage on the Murrah side far exceeds the damage across the
street. Explain.

There wasn't anything across the street, Jason.

I thought it was a parking lot?

There wasn't a building across the street, Jason. What an idiot
troll.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:11:42 -0500, agent86@justicemail.com wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:39:05 -0700, "khobar" <pnixon18@cox.net> wrote:


There wasn't a building across the street, Jason. What an idiot
troll.

While the second part of your assertion above is fitting, I believe
it *might* be helpful if you would clarify the statement "There
wasn't a building across the street" because the photo here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html does
show a building across the parking lot. It's entirely possible the
photo was taken with a long lens, and the fact that the angle is from
behind that building does nothing to help show the damage to that
building.

Obviously, "across the street" is subject to interpretation, but to
say there was no building across the street is inaccurate. Or was
that intentional? :-)

No, it was not inaccurate. You just said that the picture you cite
shows a building ACROSS THE PARKING LOT. There was no building
directly across of 5th Street from the bomb location. There was a
parking lot. Beyond the parking lot, there was the Journal Record
building. Even it, at its distance from the bomb, suffered
significant damage with most of the windows blown out and the roof
blown off.

The Journal Record Building was built by the Freemasons - that's all
you need to know... I'm actually suprised nobody's picked up on that
yet - the fact it was built as the local Masonic Temple in the 1920's.
Surely someone can work up a conspiracy from that.
Seriously though, there was not only damage to the building, but
there were some injuries. The building itself was not fully-occupied,
the Journal Record being a local daily financial paper. Its staff
isn't huge, and if memory serves, most of the upper floors were used
for storage.

Supernews is SuperSHIT wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:t94t401jtenc85bas62prm6tfsbrdgmk1t@4ax.com:

You do know you can't easily mix diesel and fertilizer, and even if you
could, it wouldn't do anywhere near that much damage, don't you?

Well, the IRA have used that stuff to considerable effect.

Graham

On 10 Mar 2004 17:01:40 GMT, Supernews is SuperSHIT <spam@snuhco.com
wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:f73t40hc1ne6uf1h49ng336mo0enjiutst@4ax.com:

On 8 Mar 2004 00:49:44 GMT, Supernews is SuperSHIT <spam@snuhco.com
wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:7o9l40tuiprd0ak9soqeosi5dn0n8fpp5f@4ax.com:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:17:20 -0000, Captain Pissy <piss.right@off
wrote:

agent86@justicemail.com wrote in
news:p0vc40hiucd1t9j7uc19goufu071rdnnj4@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:30:26 -0000, "Step Three: Profit"
spam@snuhco.com> wrote:

Tell us again how the 18 foot crater turned into a 28 foot
crater.

When did it do that?

Very early on.

You are correct about that, but it was a misreporting based upon
the
amount of debris in the crater.


Debris made it wider?

No, idiot, when the debris was cleared, it was wider than
originally
thought.


Hahahahahahaha. Yes, the more you dig in a hole, the bigger it gets.

Very good, Kris.


Why didn't the buildings across the street receive equal damage?

Because there weren't any buildings across the street. It was a
parking lot. The next closest building, a parking structure down
the
street a bit from the truck bomb location was pretty much
devastated.
Not to mention the damage to the Water Resources building and the
Journal Record Building.


So all the cars across the street were blown to shit, then?

Actually, they were. One of the cars I saw pictured in the
paper,
totally destroyed, was a yellow Miata that I used to see several
mornings a week, as the woman who owned it lived in the same area
as
I
did at the time. I knew the car from the vanity tag clearly
visible
in the picture - "My Auta". I suppose you think the "Guv'mint"
drove
all the way up to far northwest OKC, stole her car, rolled it a few
times, and then planted it in the lot?


Got a cite? I can't find any photos of damaged, blown to shit cars.

It was in the Daily Oklahoman, you can access their archives at
www.newsok.com - it's a pay service, so you'll have to pony up some
cash.


So you have no cite.




You do know you can't shape a truck bomb charge, right?

Of course, which is why cars were blown to shit in the lot across
the street - the blast wave went in all directions.


Equivalent damage on both sides of the street?


Must have been a huge secondary explosion then, right?

Nope,, same one - debris tends to fly and hit things, you know...


Right...

Yeah, dude, debris only goes where it's told.



Debris flying OUTWARD from the Murrah building means the bomb was
internal to the building, Kris...


Please think about that.


So why no exploding cars?

You watch too many movies - it's damn hard to blow a car up by
dropping a hunk of concrete on it.


Why would concrete fly outward due to to a truck bomb, Kris?




Why all the reports of other bombs?

There were 3 IIRC, all of which turned out not to be true. When
one
is crawling through a bombed out building and runs across
something
that looks like a bomb, the safe bet is to assume it is a bomb
until
proven otherwise. In all cases at the Murrah building, these
reports
turned out to be false.


And that's why they said these bombs could be used to ID the
terrorists?

Some news reports did, all later proven to be without any factual
basis to them. Media speculation - as I've said before, I watched
the
local media coverage as it happened, there was a lot of wild shit
said. The media here more or less blamed some poor Jordanian guy
because he supposedly "left home quickly" after the bombing for the
airport. Turned out all he was guilty of was making an emergency
trip
home on a family matter. That was a major fuck-up on the part of
the
media and law enforcement - who all but had the guy lynched before
5
o'cock on the 19th.

Red Herring.

No, xenophobia and hysteria. I don't know how many times that day
that people - just average people, no media - were saying that the
"Towelheads" did it, and that guy unfortunately got caught in the
hysteria. America just didn't want to believe that white boys can be
terrorists to. i don't see what's so hard about that - Britian has
been dealing with the IRA for decades, is it so hard to accept that
there are radicals within our society that would attack other
Americans to further their cause?

This video proves you are clearly lying:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/120603roadtotyranny.html

'Confirmed by federal authorities", etc.

You are a complete moron - refer back to Ralph's post above. Who am
I going to believe, a bunch of 'net conpiracy wankers

or a person
experienced in disasters? I told you the photos can be obtained from
the Daily Oklahoman, you just have to ask for them and pay their small
fee for downloading them.

If you aren't willing to do this and
instead want to claim "I have no cite" because of this, then you are
an even sorrier little wuss than I ever thought. Contact the Daily
Oklahoman, you might be shocked at what you find in the archives of a
legitimate news source whose people were *actually* there. Their
photos are copyrighted, and it would be illegal for me to post them
elsewhere - but you can get them the same way I did, by requesting
them and paying their nominal fee.

On 10 Mar 2004 17:05:56 GMT, Supernews is SuperSHIT <spam@snuhco.com
wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:t94t401jtenc85bas62prm6tfsbrdgmk1t@4ax.com:

On 8 Mar 2004 00:43:19 GMT, Supernews is SuperSHIT <spam@snuhco.com
wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:3l9l401f3bkhdc8t3c1bkosp9es7qh4r44@4ax.com:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:30:26 -0000, "Step Three: Profit"
spam@snuhco.com> wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:rkoa40hg97n17tm3ebslj8kkm6ie1b85or@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:57:31 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
spam@snuhco.com> wrote:

Bàidh Stidean <I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote in
news:gbe840doeha27t1r14todu2sr6sckck766@4ax.com:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:18:34 -0000, Swedish Scat Team
guh@buh.cuh
wrote:


*All* planes were grounded on 9/11, civilian, commercial and
military.

A standdown.

Yes, you are absolutely right, Jason! I didn't see Oklahoma
ANG
and
USAF aircraft operating over Oklahoma City on 9/11. You
remember
Oklahoma City, don't you? You should, you tried rearranging
our
entire downtown area about a year ago to fit another of your
bullshit
conspiracies.


Is that why you spanked off and ran away?

Actually, that was you, after claiming the YMCA was "across the
street" from the Murrah Building, amongst other lies. Do try to
lay
off the smoke and keep your claims straight.


Tell us again how the 18 foot crater turned into a 28 foot crater.

Explained ad nauseum.


Nope. Never.

Cite?

You already know where it is, you just deny what it says.


The only cite you can find costs money to read?

A lot of legitimate newspapers charge for accessing their archives,
sorry. Obviously, we can now chalk up web hosting to the litany of
things you know nothing about. It costs a newspaper money to maintain
an extensive archive complete with search engines - why wouldn't they
charge for it?

Why didn't the buildings across the street receive equal damage?

There were no buildings directly across the street, all that was
there was a parking lot.



And the cars were heavily damaged, as the building was?

You obviously know *nothing* about the building's construction,
which I explained in another post, the upper floors collapsed because
the bomb took out the main transfer beam that held the cantilevered
floors, 3-9 - the damage you see on the upper floors was caused by
this, not a bomb tearing a hole in them. Furthermore, the entire
north face of the building was glass on 3-9, the shockwave alone
shattered all of that. Hell, it blew windows out on the upper floors
of the 300' tall Bank of Oklahoma Plaza two blocks south...


So it was strong enough to blow apart concrete columns from a distance,
but it didn't do the same thing across the street?

There were no concrete columns across the street, duh... There was
a parkinh lot. On the other side of the lot was the Journal Record
Building, built in 1923 of a totally different construction method.
The Water Resources Building and the Athenian Building were also built
from different methods - all three suffered structural damage. Most
buildings built in Oklahoma City prior to the 1950's were "overbuilt"
in the sense that they had a lot of steel and reinforced concrete to
withstand tornadic winds. Our modern buildings are built from
different methods and architectural schools of thought. Are they
safer? I don't honestly know, but having worked downtown during some
ugly storms - I'd much rather be in one of the old buildings from the
1920's or 1930's than some of the glass-walled ones built in the past
30 years.
What's the point of that? Simple - you cannot compare buildings
built in 1977 with those built in 1923 - or in the case of the
Athenian, 1904. It's apples and oranges - and the fact that these
older buildings *did* suffer varying levels of damage shows that the
blast effects were carried over. To think that all damage would be
*exactly* the same as the Murrah building is really short-sighted.
Why did some buildings survive the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco
and others didn't? Different construction.

Why all the reports of other bombs?

Explained ad nauseum.

Weak lies.

Established fact.


You do know you can't easily mix diesel and fertilizer, and even if you
could, it wouldn't do anywhere near that much damage, don't you?

What's your explanation for the 1947 Texas City disaster, then?

"AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.net> wrote in
news:c2nm8d$oo$0@pita.alt.net:

A recent conversation contained this blurb:

So it was strong enough to blow apart concrete columns from a
distance, but it didn't do the same thing across the street?

What is the relationship between distance and the overpressure created
by an explosion?

Not a student of blast physics myself, I took the time to google up
some graphs which show this relationship. It appears to me that
overpressure decreases much more rapidly than distance increases. I'm
looking at a graph which appears to show a 5x increase in overpressure
over a 0.5y decrease in distance.

I assume that you have done this diligence, measured the two distances
implied by your question, and can show what effects the blast could be
expected to have at the two distances?

Thanks in advance.




What part are you having trouble understanding?

You just proved the bomb could not have brought down the building.

"90% Black Wind of Death" <spam@snuhco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94AB7361F57B2spamsnuhcocom@207.14.113.17...
"AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.net> wrote in
news:c2nm8d$oo$0@pita.alt.net:

A recent conversation contained this blurb:

So it was strong enough to blow apart concrete columns from a
distance, but it didn't do the same thing across the street?

What is the relationship between distance and the overpressure
created by an explosion?

Not a student of blast physics myself, I took the time to google up
some graphs which show this relationship. It appears to me that
overpressure decreases much more rapidly than distance increases.
I'm looking at a graph which appears to show a 5x increase in
overpressure over a 0.5y decrease in distance.

I assume that you have done this diligence, measured the two
distances implied by your question, and can show what effects the
blast could be expected to have at the two distances?

Thanks in advance.




What part are you having trouble understanding?

The part where you somehow got enough money for a computer?

You just proved the bomb could not have brought down the building.

Mmm. Please point to the blast physics which support that assertion.
We'll need to see overpressures at the relevant distances, and the
expected effects on structures. Take all the time you need.

"AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.net> wrote in

You suckas got served.