here is one of my all time favorites-he continues to investigate and update his findings and he originally was introduced to the unbelievable claims
and hoaxes perpetated by the govt in oklahoma and it continues to be one of his main focus issues- here is a synopsis on Brigadier General
Benton K. Partin (USAF, Retired)
-General Partin’s highly decorated, 31-year military career included command of the Air Force Armaments
Technology Laboratory and direct involvement in the research and development of many of our armaments and weapons systems.
On May 18, 1995, one month after the bombing, General Partin delivered a preliminary detailed analysis of the event to members of Congress. "From all
the evidence I have seen in the published material," Partin testified, " I can say with a high level of confidence that the damage pattern on the
reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb without supplementing demolition charges at some
of the reinforced column bases." In that report (See "OKC Bombing: Expert Analysis" in our June 26, 1995 issue), and in the detailed study which he
released on July 13, 1995 (see "Explosive Evidence" in our August 7, 1995 issue), Partin eviscerated the prosecution’s lone-bomb thesis with a
host of findings from the forensic evidence indicating that demolition charges were certainly used inside the Murrah Building.
Since that time, a veritable mountain of evidence, documents, records, eyewitness testimony, and authoritative support has accumulated to fortify
General Partin’s thesis, making the stubborn adherence of government officials and journalists to the lone-bomb scenario truly incredible.
In this article, we present startling new eyewitness testimony concerning demolition charges removed from the Murrah Building and the men who may have
planted them there, together with new expert testimony, recently released official records, and some of the most important evidence and supporting
documentation that has been reported piecemeal in our previous articles on the bombing. This includes:
• World-renowned physicists and an assortment of scientists, engineers, and explosives experts who concur that internal charges must have been
• A series of Air Force test blasts on concrete structures corroborating General Partin’s main contention that air blast from a truck bomb outside
of the building could not possibly account for the pattern and magnitude of the damage to the Murrah Building’s superstructure.
• A study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which acknowledges that a truck bomb of 4,800 pounds of ANFO (as claimed by the
government) would have been insufficient to cause the destruction experienced at the Murrah Building.
• Two eyewitnesses inside the Murrah Building who attest that they observed bomb squad personnel removing undetonated explosive devices from the
building after the initial blast.
• A rescue worker who attests that she heard an ATF agent state that he had found an undetonated explosive device inside the building.
• Recently released government communiques and radio transmission logs indicating that undetonated devices had been found in the building during the
early rescue efforts.
• Recordings of real-time, live television news broadcasts reporting official confirmations of multiple unexploded devices inside the Murrah
• Early statements from government officials and terrorism and bombing experts — before the "official" line was laid down — that the
explosives used were clearly very sophisticated, indicating it was the work of a "group" highly knowledgeable in explosive techniques.
• Five survivors of the blast who attest that they saw three men in the parking garage of the Murrah Building with wires, tools, and what appeared
to be building plans several days before the bombing.
• Military personnel who reportedly saw McVeigh or John Doe No. 2 inside the building but were threatened with court-martial if they mentioned what
they had seen.
The Unheard Experts
General Benton Partin’s report on the Oklahoma bombing should have hit the nation like a thunderclap. Not only was his analysis thorough and
scholarly and his credentials unimpeachable, but his observations also conformed to a commonsense appraisal of evidence that was widely available and
understandable to the general public. General Partin’s highly decorated, 31-year military career included command of the Air Force Armaments
Technology Laboratory and direct involvement in the research and development of many of our armaments and weapons systems. Among many other things,
this expert’s expert pointed out that:
• Blast through air is a terribly inefficient coupling mechanism against heavy reinforced concrete beams and columns. Blast wave energy drops
dramatically when traveling through air, initially falling off more rapidly than an inverse function of the distance cubed.
• Using the official estimate of 4,800 pounds of ANFO would yield a maximum pressure of explosion of about one-half million pounds per square inch
at detonation. But by the time the blast wave traveled through the air to the nearest of the building’s columns, it would have dropped off to about
375 pounds of pressure per square inch, and by the time it reached the nearest column in the second row of columns it would have been down to 27 to 38
psi. The compressive yield strength of concrete is around 3,500 pounds per square inch, far above anything exerted by the truck bomb blast on the
• The asymmetrical damage to the building — i.e., the off-center "bite" — presents another insuperable problem for the official scenario,
requiring that the blast wave leave standing columns that were closer to the explosion while taking out columns that were farther from the blast.
• Inherent in the official scenario is the absurd claim that the truck blast was sufficiently strong to collapse the huge columns and beams, but not
strong enough to knock down sheet rock, furring strips, and other light, fragile materials.
• Examination of the photographic evidence shows clearly that the column failures were smooth and localized, as would be expected with cutting
charges, not jagged, as would be the case if they had been shattered by the brisance of an air blast.
The persuasive cogency of his analysis — coupled with his outstanding stature and experience in the field of military ordnance, explosives, and
blast effects — should have earned General Partin’s thesis a respectable hearing. But it was dismissed out of hand or ridiculed by the same
officials and media-anointed "experts" who have propagated a continuous string of absurdities to explain away the avalanche of contradictions and
inconsistencies in the official scenario of the bombing.
However, an impressive and growing array of experts supports the general’s conclusions. Renowned physicist Samuel Cohen, the inventor of
the "neutron bomb," is one of them.
One of the last remaining scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project, the original U.S. atomic bomb
program, Dr. Cohen has spent more than half a century deeply involved in scientific work on weapons systems and analysis for the U.S. government and
private industry. "I believe that demolition charges in the building placed inside at certain key concrete columns did the primary damage to the
Murrah Federal Building," Cohen stated in June 1995. "It would have been absolutely impossible and against the laws of nature for a truck full of
fertilizer and fuel oil — no matter how much was used — to bring the building down." Contacted this year shortly after the third anniversary of
the bombing, Dr. Cohen said he was even more convinced of the truth of that statement. "I have not been following the case closely," he told The New
American, "but it seems to me that the evidence has gotten much stronger in favor of internal charges, while the ammonium nitrate bomb theory has
Another celebrated scientist who shares much the same opinion is Dr. Frederick Hansen
, professor of physics at the University of Oregon.
Dr. Hansen’s distinguished career includes professorships in engineering, aeronautics, and chemistry at MIT, Nagoya University in Japan, the Indian
Institute of Technology in India, and Cheng Kung University in Taiwan. For 15 years he was the head of earth and astro sciences at the General Motors
Defense Research Laboratories, and for more than 20 years was a research scientist with NASA, where he became chief of the Fluid Mechanics Branch and,
later, chief of the Physical Gas Dynamics Branch. In the latter post, he supervised construction of the world’s most powerful research shock tube,
where he conducted experiments using high explosives. In a letter to Representative Charles Key earlier this year, Dr. Hansen stated: "I agree with
Gen. Partin that blast through air is a very inefficient coupling mechanism against structure. Only by containing or focusing the blast can extensive
damage be inflicted on reinforced structures.... Everything considered, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that only an explosive detonated right at
the column could have sheared it."
Dr. Roger A. Raubach
, a chemist who taught on the research faculty of Stanford University and now serves as the technical director of a
chemical company, says he has "no reservations supporting General Partin." He adds that "the possibility of an ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb,
regardless of size, demolishing a reinforced concrete structure at a 20 or 30 foot standoff not only strains the limits of credibility but exceeds it
by a considerable margin."
Dr. Ernest B. Paxson
, an engineer with over 30 years experience in civilian and defense-related projects and a published author in many
professional journals, concurs completely. "The damage pattern of any structure will indicate how the loading conditions which caused failure were
applied," Dr. Paxson wrote in a letter to The New American after reviewing forensic evidence in the Oklahoma bombing. "In the case of the OKC Murrah
Building, the failure pattern demonstrated to me that individual charges were placed on each of the failed columns inside the building." Paxson, who
now runs his own engineering company in Utah, says he bases his evaluation on not only his knowledge of physics and engineering, but on training and
practical experience he received in the U.S. Army Engineers Corps in the use of explosives to destroy different types of structures. "Based on that
training alone," he told The New American, "I would say that a 4,800 pound ANFO truck bomb is an extremely inefficient way to bring down any
structure. It might blow a hole in the curtain wall closest to the truck, but it would hardly touch the supporting columns of the building, because
air is such a poor coupling agent. In fact, to be assured of destroying any structure, one would have to place the correct amount of explosive charge
in intimate contact with the pertinent supporting members."
These experts are on solid scientific ground and are supported by a wealth of authoritative sources pertaining to blast effects in general as well as
to evidence specific to the Murrah Building explosion. Especially important in this regard is the data from tests of blast effects on concrete
structures conducted by the Armament Directorate of Wright Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base. An extensive study of the Eglin data conducted by
construction and demolition analyst John Culbertson and first published in The New American (see "Multiple Blasts" in our March 31, 1997 issue)
concluded that "it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO.... It
must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as
locally placed charges within the building itself." The same conclusions were reached by the engineering experts who reviewed the study for this
magazine: Robert Frias, president of Frias Engineering in Arlington, Texas; Mike Smith, a civil engineer in Cartersville, Georgia; and Alvin Norberg
of Auburn, California, the engineer of record on over 5,000 building construction projects.
[edit on 9-4-2005 by Sunofone]