[Fox Propaganda Service] Was Iraq Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing?

i'm not an expert in explosives....by any stretch of the imagination...but that's always confused me. i've always been a bit skeptical of the idea that loading up a truck with fertlizer and causing it to explode would bring down a multi-story building.

 

Fertilizer bombs can be extremely powerful. If you look at the ingredients, fertilizers have much in common with TNT.

 

i heard steve kerr was behind all of this.

 

Kerr can be an a$$clown, but I seriously doubt he is a terrorist.

If he were, Jordan would have found him out and strung him up.

 

Steve Kerr's dad was murdered by terrorists at the American University in Lebanon.. I seem to recall.

 

fine if not steve could it be karla?

 

IT HAD TO BE HIM!!!

 

i can't be scientific about it. i'm sure they're powerful. i just read what those other "experts" said and that matched with my own thoughts about the subject...at the time and since then. remember, they flew planes with jet fuel into the WTC and it took a while to bring those down...maybe a bad example since those buildings were much taller.

frankly, i don't know what the hell i'm talking about. but given my ignorance of all that, it still struck me as odd.

 

I can't say I'm an expert on explosives, but I used to be big on watching documentaries about them (demolition of buildings, Army demolition teams, Nobel's work, etc.) and I clearly remember seeing in one of them that fertilizer makes bombs that can do extensive damage.

Besides, IIRC, the majority of the damage was to the outside of the building and the pictures I saw seemed consistent with a large bomb being detonated outside the building as the sides and back of the building were virtually untouched, which would not have been the case with charges placed on or near support columns. You don't need to take out many of those columns with placed charges to take down an entire building and only the front third of that building was damaged.

Check out this pic...



It certainly looks to me like the blast was centered on the outside of the building.

 

The Murah Building and the WTC were constructed differently along with the type and location of the blasts.

I've been looking over studies done by the American Society of Civil Engineers about what happened at the WTC and the main problem was that there was the fire protection on the structure was insufficient to withstand the first blast of the planes hitting. Once that fire protection was gone the steel was exposed to the resultant fire which caused it to fail. Also there wasn't enough redundancy in the structure so as large parts of the supporting steel connections failed the rest of the structure couldn't compensate and a chain reaction happened to bring down the towers.

The Murrah Building looks like it had sufficient redundancy in the structure to withstand the failure of a large part of the building. Also there didn't seem to be a much of a fire so that wasn't an issue in weakening the supports, that is if it is even primarily a steel structure and not concrete.

 

Does everyone on this board realize that FOX is an arm of the Republican Party? This should not be news to anyone.

Every day Fox "News" sends out a memo to it "news" department on the agenda for the day. They will keep dashing the democrats on this point all day long.

Often their point is not to make people believe their propaganda but just to confuse the issue. The first rule of propaganda is to say something outrageous, and just keep repeating it.

A poll was done on Fox viewers
67% of Fox viewers believed that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 vs. 13% of people who listen to NPR.

It's really scary.

 

Trust me, it's been discussed to death before.

 

Iraq was only a threat to the United states of Israel. We are fighting their war.

 

Durn it! Somebody forget to tell Juan Williams and Allen Colmes...

 

The sad thing is the number of idiots that are now 100% behind this theory just because they saw it on the TV.

Sadly, my mother-in-law is probably one of them.

 

Didn't FOX break out the Bush DUI story right before the 2000 election?

Overall - I like FOX. I think it is good to have different news outlets. I think we can all admit that every news organization may have biases. Sometimes its like reading a different opinion.

 

Faux News lies. That's why I don't watch it. How can you possibly expect any truth from Faux News when it's run by Roger Ailes? That's like saying a bank run by John Dillinger is going to give you a great rate on a home loan.

 

Fox doesn't just have a bias. It's set up to deceive people into believing it is "fare and balanced".

Rush Limbaugh for example is a conservative radio personality who admits it is a show giving conservative views. That is fine.

Fox New on the other hand claims to a neutral organization while promoting a republican agenda. They are destroying taboos in the news industry that have every organization till now has used to keep some sort of journalistic integrity.

Example: Fox New likes their anchors and reporters to use the term "some people are saying"...blah blah blah. This is a new way to hide the fact that they are editorializing. If anyone doubts what I'm saying, when you’re watching, and they use this term it will always be to support a republican view, or to bash a democrat.

 

Are you serious? Allen Colmes is a joke. He's not a real liberal commentator. I have actually see Colmes stand his ground and make good points three times. That was 3 out of 80 or something. Colmes is a horrible representative for the liberal side. Fox knows that, and that is why he's on.

Juan Williams is a little better, but not exactly a bleeding heart liberal.

 

Colmes is better than Hannity, but I don't usually agree with Colmes. I would assert that Colmes always stands his ground. Whether or not he wins is in the viewers' mind.

Is there a list of All-Star Liberals who have been denied their shot on Fox News?

Juan Williams is more moderate but can only be defined as leftward-leaning or -residing.