Re: Oklahoma City Bombing "Conspiracy" Debunked

On Jul 15, 1:01 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 15, 2:46 pm, malibu <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 15, 11:58 am, malibu <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 15, 11:20 am, malibu <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 15, 11:15 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 15, 12:27 pm, malibu <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:33 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

How many people have seen a program on the Discovery Channel called
"Conspiracy Test"? I am amazed (but I shouldn't be) that it received
very little news play.

In the program, the two rival theories (FBI v. General Partin) are
tested. The hosts build a truck bomb a la Timothy McVeigh, and then
test its effect on a concrete column like the one closest to McVeigh's
Oklahoma City truck bomb. The distance from truck to bomb is identical
to the theories of the Federal building bombing.

The FBI calculations predicted a force of 5,000 lbs. Those of General
Partin (supposedly an ordnance expert) were 500 lbs of force -
clearly not enough to have brought down the building. Based upon these
calculations, General Partin suggested that other bombs had been
planted inside the building. Does this sound similar to suggestions
about a certain event in September 2001?

There was also a claim that seismographic data showed TWO tremors -
inconsistent with a single truck bomb, but consistent with a truck
bomb PLUS internal bombs.

Many people found the size of the hole in the street problematic, and
the fact that the only part of the truck found was the rear axle, from
which the ruck was actually identified.

The program had access to the best seismographic equipment in the
country, and had sensors on the concrete column to measure the ACTUAL
force.

This a classic case of experiment versus theory.

Surprise, surprise!

The actual force measured was 5,500 lbs - consistent with the FBI's
predictions, but NOT General Partin. It turns out the military
"Expert" was off by a whole order of magnitude. If I made a prediction
in avery serious matter that was off by an order of magnitude, I would
be very depressed and humiliated. Not the General, though. He was
still sticking by his invalidated results. Perhaps the "skills" that
got the General his high rank were not in mathematics.

But what about the TWO seismic events? There were two seismic events
with THIS truck bomb, too. In fact (Though this was not mentioned on
the program), the test bomb shakes were even FURTHER apart from each
other than the ones at OKlahoma City.

What about the truck? It was completely vaporized in the test - except
for ... drum role please.... the rear axle.

And the hole? The crater in the test was actually SMALLER than the
hole at the Murrah Building, even though it was conducted on soft
earth, and not a city street.

Hmmmm. Does this give me any hints as to the accuracy of the
conspiracy theorists about 911 or the Moon "hoax"?

Except I watched the live on-site newscasts where
they reported finding a second unexploded device, and
I have seen recordings of these newscasts since.

Have you ever watched an episode of "Cops"? Have you heard the
explanations of events by witnesses there? Are you really that
"surprised" and "shocked" that stupid people jump to conclusions or
just plain make *** up?

Surprise, surprise- suddenly there are no more
mention of any sophisticated bombs;

Yeh, because there WERE no bombs - just badly shaken people jumping to
conclusions.

just some good
ol boy and his truck a' manure

You probably believe all the witnesses at the Salem Witch Trials, who
said they saw levitations and witches and spells. The "truth" of the
reality of witches was "suppressed" by the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Can you say "fascism"?

Same old, same old.
The government is telling the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth- until 25 years later, when
it don't matter any more.
Can you say 'Fascism'?

John.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you still believe Pearl Harbour was a surprise?
Now that it has beeen admitted that it wasn't, do
you believe the *before* government story or
do you believe the *after 25 years* government
story. (or 50 years or whatever)

They are diametrically opposed, but
they are *both* official stories-
which do you believe?

Or perhaps you believe both? With training
in QM you probably could, come to think of it,
without a qualm and eating your jam and toast with a smile.

John

no answer?
i thot not

Still silent?

I was eating lunch. I apologize for HAVING A LIFE. I am also working
on a project.



It makes it pretty hard to argue that the
gov't is telling the truth, when they have
already admitted that they lied to you about
things like Pearl Harbour, doesn't it?

What "lie" about Pearl Harbor? The suggestion that FDR "knew" the
Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, but let them do it, so
that he get into the war?

It is beyond ludicrous. FDR had been Undersecretary of the Navy during
WWI. He would allow thousands of sailors to be killed, and dozens of
the ships that he had overseen construction of, destroy, on the slim
chance that the American public would be MORE likely to enter the war?

In all OTHER countries, the response to a sneak attack was despair and
surrender. Kind of the like the effect of 911.

There is absolutely NO evidence of such a thing.



Does it occur to you that they lie as a matter of course?

Who is this "they"? Democrats? Republicans? Liberals? Conservatives?
Do you mean like Kennedy's lies about his health, when asked point-
blank whether he had Addison's disease? Or the white-wash of his
"heroism" in the Pacific, which would have gotten any other commander
court-martialed?

I agree that "they" lie, but "they" are almost as incompentent at
lying as they are at running wars. We are therefore safe.



Do you wonder *why* they are
lying to you as a matter of course?

Do you think lying is a *good* thing?

If they asked you to go online
and deflect any efforts to determine the truth
with more lies, would you do it?

No, I'm too busy. But if they paid me enough, I'd try to do a good job
of it :-)



Is that in fact what you are doing?

No.



Do you have any morals?

Maybe.



Do you think morals are a *good* thing?

"Morals" is usually a means to tell other what to do, while allowing
yourself free rein.



Do you think morals are only applicable
within the framework of religion?

No, since I am an atheist.



WHERE exactly are you coming from
horny MAN?

Unfortunately, not somewhere nice....



John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


ok i got my answer

pay you enuf and you'll lie

morals are a drag on getting ahead

gotcha

.

Quantcast