From: glhurst@onr.com (Gerald L. Hurst)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: oklahoma explosive
Date: 13 Jan 1996 20:28:25 GMT

In article <4d8mp1$r20@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
<uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> says:

>The nature, and hence geometry, of the OK City explosion is open to 
>question.
>
>Ammonium nitrate/fuel oil emits a vast red-brown plume of NOx when it 
>pops.  I did was involved in oil shale work in 1970 for Occidental 
>Petroleum, in Colorado.  It took three days to ventillate the galleries 
>after a blast.
>
>The OK City explosion was heard 40 miles away.  Official truth claims up 
>to five tons of ANFO in the device.  How is it nobody witnessed/recorded 
>a 400 foot NOx geyser?  Where are the residues from  the blast?  Analysis 
>of hydrocarbon deposits could fingerprint the source of the diesel (or 
>whatever).

The amount of visible or at least noticeable NO2 varies greatly
with the exact oxygen balance. One sees the clearest orange-brown
vapor from the venting of underground shots in wet conditions. 
Surface shots always produce a great cloud of dust into which
NO2 can blend to simply look like more dust, especially in
Oklahoma, where dust storms look like NO2 gas attacks. Many
times, NO2 is not even visible from clean surface shots.

>Two seismic waves were recorded.  Had the device been a fuel/air bomb, a 
>"small" charge would rupture the vessels and nebulize/disperse the fuel 
>cloud.  Detonators would then trigger the vapor/mist cloud in air, and 
>KABOOM!  As air is the oxidizer, the device would scale down to about 
>500-700 lbs tops with no residues and no plumes.  Of course, such a 
>device would require non-trivial design and computer modeling (commonly 
>only available to a government).

The number of events recorded by seismometers is a highly debated
topic among the cognoscenti. There is no really persuasive evidence 
for more than one blast, (at least that I have seen). I've
also listened to the two tape recordings of the event from near
and far. Some say they hear two events; I hear only one.

>Had it indeed been a fuel/air munition, the inverse square law would NOT 
>obtain!  The very large projected area of the cloud before detonation 
>would not be a point source, it would approximate a plane wave detonation 
>- NO initial decrease in power with distance, then a much slower decrease 
>than inverse square.  Even a line source only decreases linearly with 
>distance.

If the explosive had been a fuel-air mix, there would have been no 
crater. There is no basis at this time for suspecting that FAX was 
involved. 
 
>One last thought.  How is it that all "targeted" government personnel  
>were evacuated shortly before the blast, leaving children, innocents, and 
>a Dept. of Agriculture office to be slaughtered?

Just who were these "targeted" personnel and how do we know
they were targeted?  Who targeted them? Neither McVeigh nor any
hypothetical "insiders" have have yet testified on this subject.  

Uncle Al, it is a big grin to learn that you are a conspiracy buff.
If you find any real evidence for any of the above disputed 
opinions, please let me know. I like a good conspiracy just as well 
as the next guy :). Maybe we'll get some more facts on which to
base our theories from the criminal trial (in April?).



Jerry (Ico)