1.13.00
THE TRUTH OF THE OKC BOMBING
This analysis, reprinted below, of the destruction of the Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City is corroborated by virtually every unbiased,
uncompromised and intelligent rendition and breakdown of the events
we've ever seen; INCLUDING the accounts and witness testimony which were
reported DIRECTLY from the scene of the disaster on the morning of the
massive disaster, by the news and media crews present.
There is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the Murrah building was NOT destroyed
by a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer-based explosives and parked
across the street. NOT, NOT, NOT.
This utter fabrication and distortion of truth and reality which OUR
federal government has continually foisted upon the public is a
COMPLETE, UTTER, HEINOUS, MALICIOUS AND EVIL LIE--propounded to the far
corners of the earth--for reasons which remain somewhat uncertain.
Except for this: the destruction of this building--and the subsequent
gargantuan, megalithic Hitler-like "Big Lie" OUR government spewed
unilaterally and endlessly subsequent to the horrendous event, to the
effect that the building was "bombed" by radical, right-wing "militia"
fanatics Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols using the truck bomb--figured BIG
in hyping the public and Congress to support the passage of the
Anti-Terrorist Bill. The bill was a dead duck until the destruction of
the Murrah Building and the overwhelming propaganda campaign of
incredible lies that OUR government promulgated about the event.
And, the VAST majority of the sickeningly spineless, gutless, BRAINLESS
and staggeringly INEFFECTUAL and worthless major news media
organizations bought the government's lies and regurgitated them
verbatim; over and over and over again.
The feds WANTED that bill passed no matter what: and with consummate
evil they manipulated public perceptions of the OKC bombing to make it
appear the American "militia" movement, infested with violent,
demented, dangerous and homicidal lunatics, was responsible; and that
this terrorist militia movement and other terrorist organizations must
be fought with such methods and tactics as the Anti-Terrorism Bill would provide.
We are now living with the effects of this frightening and
unconstitutional Anti-Terrorism Bill and our federal government's
continual, widespread and abusive implementation on a daily basis of the
tactics and procedures provided for by the bill.
NewsHawk® Inc.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Subject: IMPORTANT: THE TRUTH OF THE OKC BOMBING
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:46:29 -1000
From: "Don Stacey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What REALLY happened to the Murrah Office Building in Oklahoma City? The
"lone nut" story of Timothy McVeigh never seemed right even before the
grossly inconsistent evidence began streaming forth. At first, it was
just haunting questions. Why was a major office of the Bureau of Alcohol
Tobacco and Firearms in the building totally empty during normal
business hours on that morning? Why did BATF personnel lie about it? Why
were no children of the BATF personnel at the day care center that day?
Why had a judge been warned not to come to work that day? Why had the
fire department been alerted before the explosion? Why had several
people reported seeing a bomb squad truck at the Murrah building before
the explosion?
Subject: What really happened in Oklahoma City?
http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/
THE OKLAHOMA CITY INVESTIGATION: A SICK $89 MILLION JOKE
When the US military destroyed a $100,000,000 manufacturing plant in
Sudan a few months ago, I found myself thinking about the Anti-Terrorist
Act, one of the legal theories that "justified" the assault.
We've since learned that: 1) the factory made medicine not chemical
weapons, 2) enemy "du jour" Osama ben Laden appears not to have had any
financial connection to it, and 3) the CIA had been warned long in
advance of at least one of the embassy bombings that made our
"counterattack" necessary.
Now, just a few months later, the news media has largely forgotten the
story. As for the disastrous effect the loss of this plant will have on
Sudan and its neighbors, that obvious question doesn't have seem to
crossed the minds of anyone in the US news media.
The media, right, left and in between, has taken a similarly supine
attitude towards the Anti-Terrorist Act. Should we really have a law
which allows our government to do such things? And how in the world did
we end up with a law like this in the first place?
The last question is easy to answer: The Anti-Terrorism Act was
unpassable until 168 people were killed in Oklahoma City on April 19,
1995. And we all know what happened in that city on that day. Timothy
McVeigh, a loner, a nut, a malcontent drove a Ryder truck packed with
explosives made of fertilizer to the front of the A. P. Murrah Federal
Building and set it off.
There's just one small problem with the story: it defies the laws of
physics and common sense.
"You've got to see this!"
I was first clued in to the gaping holes in the Oklahoma City story by a
video sent to me by one of my readers. Among other things, I document
instances of election fraud, the crime that "never happens" in the US.
My readers come from all over the political spectrum, from Marxists who
see election fraud as yet another proof of the untenability of
capitalism to rabid Rush-ites who are sure it's all a part of a liberal
plot. Fortunately for my sanity, because I correspond with my readers on
a regular basis, most fall somewhere in the middle.
One day a video arrived with a note saying in essence: "You've got to
see this!" So I popped it in the VCR. What I saw shocked, but didn't
surprise me. The video was made up of footage taken from live local TV
news reports right after the bombing in Oklahoma City. The same theme
was consistent throughout all the broadcasts: "A bomb has gone off
inside the Murrah building and the bomb squad is clearing out rescue
workers because additional bombs have been found."
Also included with this tape was a video of a public access interview
with one Benton Partin, a retired Air Force Brigadier General. In it he
makes the case that the major damage to the Murrah Building could only
have been done by a bomb or bombs inside the building. His presentation
was logical and his logic was unassailable. More on this later.
I don't need to have a ton of bricks fall on me to appreciate the
obvious and I filed all this away as yet another example of the
stupendous ineptitude of the US news media. Can't they get anything
right? Can't they do anything other than rewrite government and
corporate press releases? What's happened to independent reporting,
seeking the truth, and all the other stuff I still naively believe is
the reason we have a news media in the first place?
The great "militia kook" conspiracy hoax
Months later, I casually mentioned to a group of fellow journalists that
we still don't know what damaged the Murrah Building so severely and one
of them was all over me: "Don't you know that all those doubts are from
stories planted by right wing militia kooks?"
No actually, I didn't know that. What I do know is that for several
hours after the blast, the local media quite clearly and unequivocally
referred to a blast inside the building, as did many of the eye
witnesses and victims who were interviewed live on the scene. The
anchors even read from a Justice Department press release that said the
same thing.
But then the story changed. And the live feeds from the street stopped.
Now it was a truck bomb parked in front of the building that did all the
damage. Despite how you may disrespect local TV reporters, and how much
many of them have earned that disrespect, they are pretty good at
sticking microphones in people's faces and letting them talk. And when
they don't start out with a preprogrammed agenda, they sometimes let the
truth slip through.
Is it likely that right wing militia nuts seeded the street with victims
and local officials to spread the "rumor" that there was a bomb inside
the building? Is the FBI, which has been caught in so many lies they
have filled several books, a likely source of reliable information about
a tragedy they may have inadvertently had a hand in? (The Bureau had
been warned the Murrah Building was a target for attack, but did nothing
to protect the occupants.)
"But what about Partin? Surely he can't know what he's talking about.
Surely he's a militia kook who dreams at night of overturning the
federal government."
What about Partin
No, actually Partin is a man whose attitudes would be considered
absolutely typical and mainstream in many parts of the country . He's a
self-described Christian and proud of it, he hates Communism, and he
believes its philosophy is the single biggest threat to American
freedom. These attitudes are hardly uncommon among career military men.
In fact, it would have been hard to rise to the level of Brigadier
General during the Cold War without holding them.
Furthermore, not only does he not hate the "guv'ment," he's been
steadily involved in mainstream political activities since his
retirement from active duty. How mainstream? How about chairman of the
Republican Party in Fairfax County, Virginia for four years? His
solution to this country's problems? Getting more people to become
involved in the political process.
Partin's complete resume is available to anyone who'd like to read it.
He's a thesis short of being a PhD. engineer and was trained by the Air
Force in the fine art of using conventional weapons to blow things up.
The Air Force thought highly enough of his expertise in this area to
make him Commander of the Air Force Armament Laboratory, the Air Force's
chief R&D facility in Elgin, Florida.
What's complicated about this?
Like many people who thoroughly grasp a subject, Partin is the soul of
clarity when explaining his science to novices. Take the Murrah Building
in Oklahoma City, for example. One look at the pictures of the damage
tells you at least part of force which killed our fellow citizens came
from deep within the building. Why? The severe damage to supporting
columns inside the building. This kind of damage can only be done by
charges placed on or drilled into a column and absolutely cannot be done
by the air blast generated by a bomb denonating in the street. (If you
have an emotional need to doubt this, as many seem to do on this
subject, contact a demolition company and ask them.)
Consider this example that is within the experience of many people. Take
a small firecracker and blow it up a few inches from your hand. What
happens? Nothing. Take that same small charge and blow it up in your
hand. What then? Bye-bye fingers. Or imagine you want to blow up a
watermelon (a typical kid thing to do.) Where do you put the charge? In
the watermelon, of course. Setting off the charge near the watermelon
won't do a thing.
Let's take another example. You want to knock somebody out. Do you score
any points why swinging with all your might but not connecting? No. The
force needs to be laid on very directly, otherwise all you produce is a
strong breeze.
What about a truck bomb parked in the street in front of a building?
Surely that is a dangerous thing. It is. The shock wave generated by an
explosion can shatter windows and send razor sharp shards of glass and
other debris flying through the air. It will blow over a frame building.
But it can't crumble a concrete support pillar many feet away. The force
of a blast falls off dramatically the further you get away from the
explosion. Support columns are designed to withstand huge loads, over
3,000 pounds per square inch. They simply cannot be taken down by the
air blast of an explosion that, by the time it reaches it, is only
exerting 25 to 35 pounds per square inch.
On the other hand, a very modest charge, when place on or in a concrete
column can take it down with ease. In fact, how many pounds of
explosives would you venture to guess it took to take down the entire
Murrah Building when it was decided for reasons of "closure" (no valid
engineering or investigative reason) to demolish the entire building?
Just 150 pounds of explosives - total - placed in strategically in small
charges throughout the building right on the support columns was all
that was needed. In demolishing concrete structures, proximity is not
just an important thing, it's everything.
Partin offers a much more thorough and technical explanation of all this
(complete version) (short summary version), but you don't need to be an
engineer or an expert to grasp the basic point: you can't demolish a
concrete column designed to withstand hundreds of pounds of pressure
with the air shock wave of an explosion.
Motives
In Benton Partin we have a man who is profoundly experienced in what he
is talking about and who has no reason to cry "wolf." He's quite
comfortable in his Virginia retirement after a distinguished 29 year
military career and has little to gain from embarking on a career as a
"conspiracy theorist" at this point in his life.
You'd think that the law enforcement agencies charged with investigating
the tragedy would make use of his observations. And that the news media,
which seems to so hungry for "experts" in various fields to fill the
dead air, would jump on the chance to present his conclusions to the
public. From a pure ratings point of view, it's got to be a winner, right?
Wrong. Yes, the FBI interviewed Partin, but did nothing with his
carefully prepared and highly informed comments.
When Timothy McVeigh was tried in Denver, the prosecution did call a
munitions expert to the stand, but it was necessary for them to go to
the UK to find one who could explain how a truck bomb destroyed a
concrete support pillar deep within the interior of a modern office building.
Think about that for a moment. There are thousands of individuals in
this country, in the construction, mining, and demolition industries,
not to mention the military, who could speak to the nature of the
"fingerprint" of the explosion in the Oklahoma City bombing, but, for
some reason, the prosecution had to go to England to find one who could
explain how, in this one singular instance, the laws of physics and
common sense were suspended.
Partin did make it onto one network TV program, but only a few seconds
of the hours of his taped comments were broadcast. The host, who had
left the interviewing tasks to others and who had not even bothered to
meet Partin, framed Partin's remarks in the finished segment with this
comment: "General Partin, a retired military man, is not an engineer."
Perhaps Partin hid his light under a bushel and wasn't aggressive enough
in raising his concerns? No. With weeks of the bombing, he'd sent copies
of his engineering analysis, complete with color photos, to every member
of Congress and over 1,000 media outlets. He received a handful of form
letters for his trouble.
So what really happened?
So what really happened in Oklahoma City? General Partin is the first to
admit he doesn't know, but he does know munitions and their effect on
structures. And he knows, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that the
McVeigh truck bomb could not have been the sole source of the damage
done to the Murrah Building and its occupants.
He also knows that someone doesn't want the story told. Partin's
informed analysis would have been very easy to prove or debunk. All that
would have been needed was a few hundred dollars worth of chemical and
microscopic analysis.
Had the damaged columns been destroyed the way Partin - and many others
- say they must have been, the residue of the explosive used would have
infused the rubble. Also, the damaged column's cement would have been
reduced to dust in a characteristic way, unmistakable under a
microscopic analysis. But, for reasons as yet unexplained, such basic
forensics was not thought necessary by the FBI investigators. Partin
sent letters to dozens of elected officials imploring them to block the
demolition of the building until these tests were done. His pleas fell
on deaf ears. In spite of the fact the building's architect said it was
still structurally sound, the Murrah Building was razed - and the rubble
was buried in a locked and guarded landfill.
All in the interest of promoting "closure" and "healing" no doubt.
The real tragedy of Oklahoma
The final sick punch line of this episode was delivered a few days ago.
The US government reports that the investigation and prosecution of the
Oklahoma City bombing case cost - are you ready for this? - $98 million.
The defense was permitted to bill an additional $15 million for their
"exhaustive" investigation and trial work. Nice work if you can get it.
The horror of the bombing of the Murrah Building pales in comparison
with the dumbing - and numbing - down of the US news media. Problems and
crimes are solved when the facts are aired, not spun into oblivion.
Common sense, not government assurances, should dictate the direction of
a reporter's work. That the US news media has marginalized Benton Partin
and many others who've produced valid evidence that contradicts the
FBI's press releases on the Oklahoma City bombing must rank as one of
the most disgraceful lapses in the recent history of American reporting.
Note: General Partin has also offered lucid, pertinent analysis of the
evidence in the TWA Flight 800 case. The media and federal law
enforcement have shown similar disinterest in that analysis as well.
Ken McCarthy is the sponsor of the George Seldes Internet Archive. A
early pioneer of the use of the Internet for commercial purposes, he's
spent recent years sponsoring several in-depth case studies on the
accuracy of the press in their reporting of widely covered events.
Ken was originally commissioned to write this article by a "progressive"
west coast online publication. The publication not only didn't run the
piece, but also stiffed him on his fee and research expenses. Instead it
relied entirely on reports generated by a "journalist" whose main claim
to fame was having been the AP Bureau Chief in Memphis the day Martin
Luther King was assassinated. (Among other things, this AP "reporter"
never bothered to interview the associates who were with King the moment
he was shot and instead relayed FBI and Memphis police reports
uncritically to the nation.) Name of publisher and all correspondence
related to this available upon request.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more information on how major news outlets "spontaneously and
independently" coordinate their stories, ignoring incontrovertible
physical evidence and rejecting qualified individuals who bring it
forward see the writings of Richard E. Sprague, another computer expert
forced to take up the slack left by the corrupt and inept US news industry.
###
Copyright, Ken McCarthy, 1998
Produced by: Brass Check
