Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1995/Oklahoma.bombing.html
Content
| | | | --- | --- | | Red Rock Eater Digest | Most Recent Article: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 |
Oklahoma bombing
``` [The context of this message was that John was reporting to me the evidence for thinking that the bomb in Oklahoma City was not the work of rightists and may instead have been the work of the government. I regarded all of this as reprehensible nonsense, but eventually I decided that it was more interesting (and more consistent with my free speech commitments) to make the fact of such speculation known than to just blow it off. As with everything on RRE, you'll have to use your own judgement.]
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:59:00 -0400 From: financial.opportunities@canrem.com (Financial Opportunities) To: PAGRE@WEBER.UCSD.EDU Subject: Oklahoma
Hi, Phil:
[...] I'd like to contribute the following item. It's much better because it contains the opinions of two seperate experts. It raises some very thought-provoking questions.
GIF's of the seismic chart have been kindly authenticated, expertly cleaned up and converted to GIF's, and posted to the Net. Mike Rivero [Rivero@Netcom.Com] can provide you with a separate set if you'd like to contact him directly.
[...]
Best wishes,
John
---
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 02:13:33 -0400
From: Tom TaTom
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 14:22:46 -0500 (CDT) From:DDEMING@geoadm.gcn.uoknor.edu To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Subject: OU Seismic Record
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 1995
Subject: OU Seismic data
From: ddeming@geoadm.gcn.uoknor.edu (David Deming) To: libernet@dartmouth.edu
There was an inquiry on Libernet yesterday (April 25) concerning a seismic record recorded at the University of Oklahoma. There apparently is a rumor that the seismic record shows two distinct arrivals, indicating the possibility of two explosions.
I am a Ph.D geophysicist, and assistant professor of geology and geophysics at the Univ. of Oklahoma where the seismic data are recorded. However, I am not a seismologist by training. Copies of the seismic record have been widely distributed, and I have one.
I made inquiries with my colleague, professor Jud Ahern, who is the faculty member here associated with the operation of the seismic station. Professor Ahern made the following reply, and gave me permission to post it:
---
A copy of the record is posted in the OGS seismograph display case, 1st floor. There are 3 wave "packets" just after 9:02 am. They may or may not be blast-related. The first "packet" may be noise, or a first arrival. The second two "packets" may have had separate sources or they may be part of a single wave train. If and when we learn an exact origin time (detonation time), we will be better able to determine the relationship between these events and the explosion. That they indicate two explosions is at least equivocal.
Jud
---
The record does show three distinct arrivals, timed at 9:02:02, 9:02:13, and 9:02:23 am, CST. The first arrival appears to be distinctly different from the other two, and is similar to micro-earthquake activity which is very common on other sections of the record.
I would agree with professor Ahern that the second and third arrivals do not necessarily represent separate explosions. These most likely represent surface waves, which tend to be dispersive. That is, waves of different frequencies travel at different velocities and thus tend to become "dispersed". If the energy of the explosion transferred to the solid Earth was concentrated, for example, in two distinct frequencies, then we would expect two distinct arrivals. Considering the interaction between the explosion itself, manmade structures in the region, and the local geology, this is quite plausible - in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
I might note that because the two arrivals are clearly separated by 10 seconds, if there were two blasts, there should be people who heard two distinct explosions. I have heard no evidence of this.
These interpretations should be taken with a grain of salt, as neither I nor Professor Ahern are seismologists. For a definitive analysis, the exact origin time will probably have to be determined as Professor Ahern mentions, and the record section turned over to someone who is not only a seismologist, but also has some knowledge of the unique characteristics and seismic signature of blast sources (as opposed to earthquake sources).
Thus our best interpretation of the seismic record at the present time is that it is compatible with BOTH a single or double explosion.
This posting may be copied and cross-posted.
---
Date: 04-27-95 (22:44)
THANK YOU!, Patty, for forwarding that.
The good Assistant Professor is mistaken on one point. Numerous eyewitnesses in the vicinity did report a second explosion *at the time*, before the existence of this seismic record was known. They said it was separated from the first by 10 seconds or so: the FBI were at pains to attribute it to an "echo" in their subsequent press conference.
I'm glad he stated clearly that it could thus show one OR two explosions. The eyewitness accounts are then the clincher!
Feel free to pass this back.
Cheers!
John
---
>Forwarded, from John DiNardo... > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Part 1, 4/26, INTELLIGENCE REPORT on the Oklahoma City Bombing > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >JOHN STADTMILLER: >Mark, without further ado, I think we'll bring on Mr. >Ken L. Gunderson. Mr. Gunderson, are you there? > >KEN GUNDERSON: >Yes, I am. > >JOHN STADTMILLER: >Okay. Mr. Gunderson, I'm sitting here and I'm reading >what you've been involved in -- what you've been doing >since you retired from the F.B.I. You have quite a record >of service, sir: > > senior special agent for Los Angeles from 1977 to 1979; > > special agent-in-charge of Memphis, Tennessee > from 1973 to 1977; > > in Dallas, in 1973, chief inspector; > > from 1965 to 1973, you were assistant special agent- > in-charge of New Haven, Connecticut and > Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; > >KEN GUNDERSON: >I retired in 1979. I was in the F.B.I. from 1950 to 1979. >And I was in Washington, D.C. in the `60s, as a supervisor. >And then I became a chief inspector in the early `70s. >And from there I went to Memphis, Dallas and Los Angeles, >where I headed up those three offices. > >JOHN STADTMILLER: >Okay. Very good. >Now, I understand that you can shed some light on the >incident [bombing] that happened in Oklahoma City. > >KEN GUNDERSON: >Well, several days ago, I received a copy of the seismogram, >which is from the University of Oklahoma Geological >Department, Norman, Oklahoma. This seismogram shows that >there were two surface waves in the seismogram that was >being monitored by the University of Oklahoma. Of course, >they normally monitor for earthquakes. > >But I called this morning and talked to Dr. Ken Luza. >I asked him to read and interpret this seismogram for me. >He told me that there were two surface waves on the morning >of April the 19th. One was at 9:02 A.M. and 13 seconds, >and the other was at 9:02 A.M. and 23 seconds, ten >milliseconds apart. > [JD: Actually, ten seconds apart.] >I asked him what that means, and he said that this indicates >that there were two detonations of a bomb, not one, as our >Government would like to have you believe. > >So, with that, I did a more little research, through some of >my sources and contacts, and I came up with what I think is >probably the bomb that was used. At least it appears to have >been the bomb, based on my research and my contacts. > >It was not a fertilizer bomb [as the U.S. Government states]. >There are too many reasons why it was not a fertilizer bomb. >The [actual] bomb is called an "electro-hydrodynamic gaseous fuel >device" -- a barometric bomb. Now what that does ... it's >similar to the Army Blue-82 bomb, which is called the >"Daisy Cutter". The primary detonation sets up a cold [coal?] >cloud, a chemical cloud, which is energized with the electrostatic >voltage, and the second detonation produces an enhanced >explosion due to electrostatic microfronts. > >I called the person (whom I happen to know) who developed this >bomb, and I relayed the information from the seismogram to him, >and pointed out to him that there were ten milliseconds [or is it >"seconds"? between explosions]. And he says that he is confident >that that is the bomb that he invented, or that he developed. > >Now, the bomb has a signature [such] that barometric pressure >increases so rapidly and dramatically that it blows out the >windows in buildings within a two-to-three-block radius. >And, believe it or not, the bomb is the size of a pineapple. > >Now, the reason that I do not believe, nor do my two >technicians believe (and I talked to two individuals on this) >that this was a fertilizer bomb is because there is not >enough "breisance" in an explosion of fertilizer to cause >the shock wave that destroyed that building. > >JOHN STADTMILLER: >>From what I understand, with these blasts that we're talking >about, we're actually talking about frequencies. And with >the [Government-declared] fertilizer bomb [story], they >[the Government] keep increasing the size of the bomb. >It started out being a thousand to fifteen hundred pounds. >And now they're up to two tons of it. >But, even still, that type of blasting device is a low-yield, >low-frequency [device], not capable of doing the type of >damage that was witnessed upon that Federal Building. > >KEN GUNDERSON: >You said it before I did, and that's exactly what I was >going to say next. And that is exactly what was said by >the technicians whom I had talked to.
* o O o - ```
| | | --- | | ProcessTree Network TM For-pay Internet distributed processing. | | Advertising helps support hosting Red Rock Eater Digest @ The Commons. Advertisers are not associated with the list owner. If you have any comments about the advertising, please direct them to the Webmaster @ The Commons. |