As I understand it, a lot of the Oklahoma devastation was contributed to by bad building design with allowed the whole front of the building to collapse. Had there been more support at ground level, the effect of the explosion would have been significantly less.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Bertenshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 17 October 2002 8:28 a.m. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: Test var. Daisy cutter - way, way off topic. > > > Looking at that link they use a derivation of an ANFO > (Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil) bomb just like the oklahoma > city bombing, basically fertiliser and diesel, however > they're not exactly very grunty. > > If you wanna get started on things we shouldn't know... > in the case of the Oklahoma city bombing theres a lot of > evidence to say that there were a number of secondary > explosions from within the building which caused the actual > damage, among other things the blast wave from that 2000kg > bomb would have been only about 300psi by the time it hit > the building and the yield strength of concrete is more > like 3500+psi!!!. > > jeremyb. > > > From: Vik Olliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2002/10/16 Wed PM 09:35:58 GMT+13:00 > > To: CLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Test var. Daisy cutter - way, way off topic. > > > > You can create a similar effect at ground level in a > high-sided vehicle > > with a big charge a la Oklahoma, but we're not supposed to > know that. > > > > Remember, behave sensibly with your fireworks! > > > > Vik :v) > > > > >
