I just visited one of the pro-conspricy theory web sites on this bombing. The argument that the truck bomb alone could not have contributed to the damage is based on a calculation placing the force of the explosion at the 2nd tier of supports at only 27 lb/in2.
This is less than 2 atmospheres. Given that the human body can cope with up to between 3 -> 4 atmosheres (scuba diving) the suggestion is that a person standing the same distance from the truck as the 2nd tier of pillars would have survived the blast (as opposed to having a building fall on them), and in fact could have got closer. Where is the flaw in this logic, and how many proponants of the conspiricy theory would willingly stand that close to an explosive laden truck while it was detonated to prove the point. I certainly wouldn't. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Bertenshaw [mailto:jeremyb.net@;xtra.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, 18 October 2002 10:06 a.m. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: Very OT: bombing > > > I'm interested to know what reason they would have for > misleading us about the design of the bomb? I guess theres > so many other cover ups going on in the whole situation. > > jeremyb. > > > From: Vik Olliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2002/10/18 Fri AM 08:14:11 GMT+13:00 > > To: CLUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Re: Very OT: bombing > > > > No, it doesn't, which is why we're being misled over the > design of the > > bomb. An ammonium nitrate slurry loaded with aluminium powder or the > > inclusion of a large quantity of a volatile liquid (propane, acetone > > etc.) over the main ANFO charge would behave like that. > This is pretty > > much what was done in Bali with C4 and gas cylinders. > > > > However, the press are reporting many instances of the use > of C4 where > > the explosive was in fact acetone peroxide. The shoe-bomber > being a case > > in point. > > > > Vik :v) > > > > >
