The Eglin Blast Effects Study and the OKC bombing on April19, 1995

Mr Thrall · October 24, 2017

A few years ago finding the original PDF of the study was a piece of cake. Just a few years later and it has become much harder. Linked below is a website that explains what the Eglin Effects study is and how the bomb used in the OKC bombing, according to the official report, could not have caused the damage that it did. Put a firecracker in your hand, light it and keep your palm open. Try the same thing with the fire cracker in a clenched fist. Enjoy.

http://911blogger.com/node/15154

[/url]

" In short, this study supports the conclusions of Brigadier Gen. Benton K. Partin (Ret.) who submitted his report to Congress in the summer of 1995, where it fell upon deaf ears."

CONCLUSION

"While the truck bomb at the Murrah Building, and the test device at the ETS were not identical devices with identical conditions, the two events have similarities that are significant enough for comparison. Further with the ETS having less integral strength than the Murrah Federal Building conclusions drawn directly from the ETS have a built in margin of error thereby eliminating the likelihood of drawing erroneous conclusions with respect to the minimal effects anticipated from an explosive blast.

It should also be noted that the test device at Eglin had the benefit of highly trained individuals constructing it. Furthermore the explosive material was small enough to be assembled in a single dense package and was of a high energy compound thereby assuring peak performance.

The Murrah device was composed of individual drums of approximately 600 lbs. maximum capacity. Eight drums would be the minimum required containment for 4,800 lbs. of ANFO. By having the explosive mixture in many containers efficiency is lost because the explosive is not densely packed. With air gaps between the drums they become in effect eight separate explosive devices working in unison. Efficiency would also be reduced if detonation was not obtained simultaneously by all eight barrels. If some of the barrels depended upon others for detonation you have what would in effect be staggered explosions, while for all purposes these would be indistinguishable, this would result in a variety of shock waves leaving the assembly at different times.

The air gaps would also result in the barrels attempting to cancel each other out as the individual shock waves meet in the air gap. The net effect would be to produce an initial shock wave pattern that is elliptical in nature and would result in much of the explosive energy taking a focus directly vertical from the assembly. While the pattern would eventually circularize and form a spherical shape much energy and therefore efficiency is lost in this transition.

Because ANFO is also a low energy explosive (approximately 30% that of TNT) and due to the inherent inefficiency of eight barrels forming the explosive assembly, it is doubtful that the device produced blast pressures close to the calculated maximum potential blast pressure. This being the case it is doubtful that the radius of damage even approached the 42.37 foot range as calculated herein.

Due to these conditions it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO. In fact the maximum predicted damage to the floor panels of the Murrah Federal building is equal to approximately 1% of the total floor area of the building. Furthermore due to the lack of symmetrical damage pattern at the Murrah Building it would be inconsistent with the results of the ETS test one to state that all of the damage to the Murrah Building is the result of the truck bomb.

The damage to the Murrah Federal Building is consistent with damage resulting from mechanically coupled devices placed locally within the structure as there are certain similarities with the resultant damage to the Murrah Building and with tests two and three.

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. As can be seen from the tests conducted at Eglin Air Force Base under known conditions producing damage to reinforced concrete structures is difficult. Reinforced Concrete exhibits damage resistance that is far above other types of construction including precast concrete masonry.