Subject:
Bomb Claim Retracted
Date:
Fri, 01 Oct 1999 15:02:55 -0400
From:
Ian Goddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What we can know for a fact about the Waco
case is that the FLIR shows gunshots into
the rear of the Center. This is not even
a matter of question and they are not sun-
light reflections, due the rapid puling of
the flashes, the nature of FLIR, and the
fact that even if FLIR could see sunlight
reflections, the sun was out of alignment:
http://rolandresearch.com/SRGv1/B9-Report.htm
However, I think I jumped the gun on the bomb
theory, which, as I noted, I did not initiate.
Considering the gravity of the claim and my
subsequent serious doubts, I feel I need to
taken down my webpage. I believe that several
central features of that theory may have other
explanations and the location of the concrete
room in my initial graphic may be inaccurate.
The circular hole is extremely odd and it's
clearly indicative of a blast, however:
1) There was intense fire inside the room,
even after the fire, it got so hot inside
that, according to Gordon Novel, glass was
melted. Video taken by Ken Fawcett, shown
to me a few years ago by Carol Valentine,
showed fire raging out of the doorway some-
time after the whole Center had burned down.
It occurs to me that if a hole had been
made by some means, the downward bending
of the rebar could be a result of the rebar
starting to melt downward. This of course
does not explain how there is a circular
hole in the roof, but I now understand that
the Davidians may have had some explosives,
of course it may also have been the government.
2) I believe that I misplaced the concrete
room on my lead graphic. It is not easy to
estimate the location of something where it
is not seen by judging from other images. I
worked hard but still feel short I believe.
Ideally, a 3D program should be used. The
difference though slight is significant
because there was a big propane tank behind
the concrete room which may have vented off
its contents. Here's the raw fireball photo:
http://kreative.net/carolmoore/4-19-93-5.jpg
3) Gordon Novel has photographs of the tank
that show that it is undamaged, and also
has photographs apparently doctored by the
FBI showing it ripped open. However, a lawyer
on the legal team informed me that a small
cap was missing from the tank in the photos
that prove it was not ripped open. Yesterday
I learned that such tanks, when overheated,
do not explode, instead a safety value pops
off and a jet of gas shoots out of an escape
valve. This could easy explain both the
fireball and why the tank was not ruptured.
4) The damage to the ceiling resulting in
the falling down of its interior surface
could be the result of extreme heat.
5) The downward smashed freezer is more likely
a result of its buckling due to extreme heat.
Notice that the panels have rippling damage,
and with melted glass on the inside too, the
metal was near melt down and could begin to
buckle. Furthermore, look at the pushed down
upper panel:
http://www.monumental.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/fig/d_fig13.jpg
It is in the far corner, but the hole in
the ceiling is over the center of the room:
http://www.monumental.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/fig/d_fig02.jpg
The freezer is in the corner furthest from the
hole. I'm persuaded that the arrow of the force
vectors coming through the hole would probably
not strike at the necessary angle to push the
top of the freezer down. The physicist I was
in touch with said: "Take your fist and hit
a covered empty shoebox on the top side
forcefully, and you will see the exact same
effect [as we see on the freezer]." But the
problem is that in that example, your fist
is directly overhead, but the hole is NOT!
6) Notice the circular array of holes on the
forward panel of the freezer. Very odd! The
physicist I was in touch with, who request
anonymity and who initiated contact with me,
said that the oval shape of those holes
"proves" that they came from a angle above.
However, I just realize after tracing the
holes the obviously fact that they are oval
ONLY due to our angle of view, if we change
our angle of view, they would be circles,
and therefore the "proof" of being propelled
from above vanishes... proof => poof. That
circular array of holes is very odd, and I
don't mean to say a bomb did not make them,
but I don't think they came from the hole,
and that assumption carried a lot of the
weight of the case that a lethal blast
ripped through a hole in the ceiling.
Needless to say I'm very embarrassed to have
declared proof of a bomb. Almost everyone who
read my webpage agreed with me, attesting to
the immediate appearance of such proof. It
is shocking to see the interior of that room.
It's very odd to have a circular hole on top.
Having someone claiming to be a physicist with
obvious physics background assuring me we have
proof, along with the analysis of munitions
expert General Partin, plus the obvious evidence
of apparent explosive forces and a probable
slight error in concrete-room placement, was all
the wind my sails needed to take the full leap.
I don't mean now to say there was not a bomb, but
I'm sufficiently persuaded that enough evidence
seen as proof has better explanations elsewhere.
