We know hardly anything of US military activities around the world – if I were to guess, something like 1% might be visible to us, the rest hidden from view, unknown here in the land of the free and oblivious. Unknown unknowns are the rule.
But there was an anomalous event of suspicious nature at took place on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City – the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was destroyed. The deed was done, we are told, by Timothy McVeigh and accomplices. He went quietly to his grave, like Iago defiant and unwilling to talk. I remember at the time of the bombing an odd-duck right-in-my-face contradiction: TIME Magazine had an artist’s sketch of the crime scene, and in it was a large hole in the ground in front of the building that was created by the fertilizer bomb. The problem was that actual photos of the crime scene, as opposed to the drawing, showed no hole.* (See above.)
I would have to subscribe to TIME to recover that story, and it is not worth it. If anyone does have a subscription and wants to search their archives, I’d be very curious about the accuracy of my memory. In the meantime, here is a ground-level photo: 
Anyone with even a slight knowledge of explosives knows a few things: One, they are most effective in a compressed area. As kids playing with firecrackers, we liked to see how high we could send a beer can – we would put the firecracker in the can, light the fuse and watch. It would fly in the air, but the most impressive trick was to put the can in a puddle of water and light the fuse, which was not easy. The can would shoot twenty, maybe thirty feet in the air, as all of the energy created by the explosion was forced upward by the compression caused by the water.
The best way to destroy a building would be an overwhelming shock wave that destroyed it and everything around it, as a nuclear bomb would do. To target one building would require a force working inside-out. Merely setting off a bomb outside a building cannot create the damage we see here, as most of the explosive force dissipates into air. Also, the force decreases exponentially by the square of the distance inverse cube distance law applies as it is directed outward – at double the distance, force is reduced to an eighth, and at triple, a twenty-seventh and so forth. So an Iraqi child or some other villain who is within, say, ten feet of an American freedom-seeking bomb is instantly rendered to blobs of flesh and bone fragments. Another, say, twenty feet away is hit by a wave of force that might destroy organs and kill her, but most of the damage over a larger area would be done by flying debris. (That is why the US military likes shrapnel weapons and cluster bombs – it is not only the explosive force, but the flying bits of metal that get the job done, creating maximum human carnage. “Anti-personnel weapons,” they call them.)
A fertilizer-based bomb set in front of a building would damage the building facade and send out a shock wave that damaged everything within its radius. The damage would decrease dramatically with increased distance. What we see in the OKC top photo is disproportionate damage inflicted on the building, and a resulting pile of rubble falling from it. But the building should largely be left intact, as the force of the explosive is far too dispersed to be able to sever columns, destroy trusses and concrete as far away as eight floors above in such a uniform manner, with the energy hitting the top floor apparently equal in force to that which hit the bottom. In short, whatever did the damage above was done by a directed energy source.
The photo below is of WTC Building 6 on 9/11, from the FEMA archives:
Here is the view from above: 
The similarities to OKC are striking: The force that destroyed the buildings left an impression much like a radial arm saw, with office furniture intact alongside the missing building. WTC6, from above, looks as if it was drilled in the same manner that I use a hole saw to install a door knob. It’s a clean cut. (There were similar holes in the pavement on Liberty Street, adjacent to WTC2.)
Was OKC a test of the same weapon used on 9/11? That sounds like a question from a documentary that is asked with ominous music and a drum beat in the background. But the official explanation for 9/11 does not withstand even the slightest scrutiny, and neither does OKC. Whatever it is, it is beyond my ability to grasp. I only know that it ain’t what we are told.
…….
*Other sources also refer to a hole, so that Time may be correct and it is simply not visible due to debris. As I kid, I heard my mother repeat an oft-cited remark about popular American magazines: “LIFE is for people who cannot read, TIME for those who cannot think.”
…….
PS: To the left here is the aftermath of an anti-freedom terrorist car bomb that struck UN headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria in August of 2011. Notice how, as expected, the impact of the damage dissipates as we move away from the center of the blast (judging from the direction of thin metal strips hanging down, we are looking outward from center). Notice how objects that do not offer blunt resistance, like pillars, are basically undamaged. The roof of the floor above is also mostly intact, as the force of the bomb by the time it reaches there is spread over a wider area and has decreased exponentially, so that the roof survives.
PPS: Another thought: What if the weapon used on 9/11 is still in the testing stages, and while bigger and better, was not yet the final product?
Piece of Mindful 
Suspected “IRA” in 1993.
LikeLike
Where was that photo taken? Belfast? London?
LikeLike
That is am amazing photo in that the damage is so uniform over such a large area, so that it is impossible, at least from this one photo, to see where the center is. IRA supposedly specialized in “fertilizer” bombs, but they are a purely kinetic force subject to the inverse square or cube law, so that it is difficult to reconcile the damage in this photo to such a device. It’s just one photo and nothing I read questions the source of the energy in the slightest, but hardly anyone questioned WTC when it happened either.
LikeLike
Bishopsgate, April, 1993, London financial district.
LikeLike
Or there is: Khobar Towers, 1996, Riyadh.
LikeLike
Here’s some humor to add to the gruesome scene:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200455.html
LikeLike
This is the embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1998.
This is the embassy bombing in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 1998. It looks a little more like conventional weaponry, perhaps an evil-seeking missile.
In either case, however, and this is true of what we generally refer to as “terrorism,” the actions are highly provocative and make no sense from a military strategic standpoint. Merely symbolic killings that in fact invite massive reprisals from a military superpower are self-defeating. Despite the common American attitude that Muslims are crazy, they are not. Their defense of Iraq, after the initial invasion in 2003, was a long-term and well planned exercise that eventually succeeded. I’m beginning to think “false flag” on these as well.
LikeLike
Interesting.
LikeLike
“Know what you know, and know what you don’t know.” – Dr Judy Wood
http://foxfromzim.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/the-u-s-embassy-attacks-in-kenya-and-tanzania-1998/
From the pictures, Nairobi looks like conventional explosives. Note the black soot or burn mark on building on the right of the Nairobi picture you posted.
In either case, the point of terrorism isn’t military. It’s political.
Here some interesting info on the Embassy attacks.
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=1998USEmbassyBombings
LikeLike
I will look at the time line later today – busy morning. I am curious about witness testimony. Are you looking at Nairobi, or Dar es Salaam? I did say above that Dar es Salaam looked like conventional weaponry. Captions are below, and not above, photos.
Terrorism, as we know it, is generally small and pointless events that serve the interests of the US, Israel, and NATO far more than any ragtag group that might “take credit” on the Internet afterward. So, thinking cui bono? it seems logical that these events are not at all what they appear. Afghanistan, for instance, never had a suicide bomb, ever, until the US invasion. In Iraq, what were considered “terrorist” actions, roadside bombs and such, were actually legitimate military acts of self defense against an invading force, legal under Geneva, and designed to harm, frighten and demoralize the invading force. Those make sense, strategically, but a market square bomb that enrages local citizenry and set religious factions against each other does not, but would be a logical action for the invaders intent on creating internal divisions and breaking larger countries into smaller ones. The US fears Arab unity far more than Muslim fundamentalism, which was why Nasser became “Hitler of the Nile.”
LikeLike
I was talking about Nairobi. The top link has more pictures of both Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. The Time line is far more detail oriented in terms of humans and news reports by locals.
Small and big are relative terms. A truck load of TNT can do quite a number on a building. But it won’t dustify it, and that’s quite apparent from the pictures at the top link of the bombing in Nairobi.
Why would tests of a new technology have to be carried out on a building in a city? As you point out, the tests for the A bomb were carried out in secret in the desert. What evidence leads you to believe a similar scenario should be discarded for the testing a DEW similar to what was used at the WTC?
Personally, I have zero idea if such a DEW was tested in public prior to 9/11/01 or not.
An interesting photographic study of a terrorist attack is the King David Hotel. There is a lot of photographic evidence of the aftermath. It was something on the order of 700-800 lbs of homemade explosives.
LikeLike
Well, to be clear, 9/11 was a far more powerful blast of energy than seen in any other photo.
“Why would they test it in a city” is post hoc, ergo prompter hoc, as we have no idea of what testing was done in non-populated locations. We only know that 9/11 was very big, and if the pictures above are indeed directed energy, they are smaller. Ergo my assumption that the weapon keeps getting bigger, itself a bad reasoning, in that I cannot know what type of weapons (or combination thereof) are in use, or that they were not in fact conventional and just very, very big.
Nonetheless, the inverse cube law does say that by the time the shock wave reaches the top floor of a 23 story building, it should have largely dissipated, so that the damaged to the lower floors should be much greater than that to the upper. Whatever force hit that building appears to have come form the front and hit evenly, even as the major destruction was blown below and to the right, in the photo. It’s illogical.
It surely belongs in the 9/11 timeline as potential false flag, as they immediately blamed Osama bin Laden without evidence, used it as justification for attacking Sudan and Afghanistan.
LikeLike
Wow this post is quite a stretch even by your standards. Was the top secret particle beam used on the US Embassy in Beirut all the way back in the 80s, because it pretty much looks like the same radial saw.
Using asymetric tactics actually does benefit thse groups more so than the United States. Another view would be the US has not benefited from our oafish responses to 9/11. i know you believe these groups are figments of our imaginations or completely US created but over ten years on they have benefited immensely from 9/11. The highly controlled secular regime in Iraq is gone and the one in Syria on the way out. The remaining are highly destablized. They have their own territory in Yemen. They are a whisker away from controlling a nuclear armed country in pakistan. The US forces are gone from Saudi Arabia (at least for the most part), and in a couple years they will be able to say they defeated us in Afghanistan just as they did the Soviets. The US, just as the Soviet Union, cannot and will not sustain a lasting presence in Afghanistan.
I realize you will respond that the US actually is benefiting and this is all about encircling China, Russia and/or Iran and that ‘Al Queda” is a US creation. War contractors have been benefiting but US security has not. It is not the same thing.
LikeLike
Well, I do thank you for taking the time for both commenting and then answering the comment on my behalf. It does save time.
Oafish response: The attack on civil liberties after 9/11 could be of less concern to any supposed real or fake “terrorist” than if we allowed gay marriage. The attack on Iraq was devastating, over million killed, two million or more refugees – those who fled could afford to flee, i.e., the professional classes. That the US did not succeed in breaking the country into three smaller countries; that 500,000 people on the street forced the US to at last back down, could not have been anyone’s plan. (The US prefers fundamentalist regimes over secular ones, as secular ones tend to want to from alliances, as Nasser did. Unified Arab states sitting atop oil scares the shit out of DC. Best to keep them fighting among themselves.)
Afghanistan/Pakistan: The only discernible reason I can see for invading Afghanistan is geopolitical, due to its strategic location, but the country is not conquerable, as many learned before. The War Dept is not stupid, so I doubt that is the objective, but maybe three other advantages: One, to prevent a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan, and eventually India; two, mineral wealth, and three, cash flow from the poppy crop, which is flourishing now under US guard. Afghanistan is also being used as a base from which to attack Pakistani rebels and preserve, protect and defend that government and its death squads and terrorist forces.
“Asymmetric” tactics: I think you misunderstand this concept. The American colonies used ASW during the Revolution, and the South Vietnamese used them against the American occupiers as well. These are small but strategic strikes that give maximum bang for minimum buck. But attacking symbolic buildings in NY and DC with no plans thereafter, from a strategic standpoint, makes no sense whatsoever. Blowing up innocent civilians and mosques in your homeland is crazy, creating division instead of unifying. (Attacks on Iraqi police and other quislings and collaborators, often lumped together with terrorist attacks probably done by US agents, is indeed ASW warfare, discouraging collaborators, and a good strategy.)
Saudi Arabia: This is a client state, and also a terrorist training ground. It is heavily fascist with hardly any civil liberties, primitive laws and punishments, immense disparity of wealth, slaves imported from elsewhere, and completely enjoying US support. US bases are kept out due to the large Sunni population that must be kept under control. But the US did use the First Gulf War as an excuse to put bases there, and then refused to remove them until Iraq was under thumb.
Al Qaeda: Formerly known as “Mujaheddin” is indeed real, but its origins and finances are suspect. Since 9/11 was a false flag operation, there was no involvement there. They pop up elsewhere, usually talked about when we want to attack a country, but given some other name when they are doing our work, as “rebel forces” in Syria. “They” could be any group of ragtags, “they” could be agents provocateur on our payroll, and in Syria, “they” could be under direct command of NATO and the US.
China, Russia The greatest fear among the great powers is resources falling into the hands of the others. China has eyes on Mali’s uranium and Sudan’s oil, hence they are in play. There’s a pipeline running through Syria, and a Russian naval base there. Venezuela is making nice with China. The second greatest fear is that smaller countries might chart an independent path, once called the “domino theory.” It is never about human rights or democracy, human suffering or atrocious behavior. It is only about dominance, cheap labor, resources – colonies by any other name smell as sweet.
This, in addition to the answer you gave on my behalf, ought to wrap up this debate.
LikeLike
But how does the use of the directed energy weapon on the Beirut embassy fit in? Because surely the Shiite militias and Iranians would not have blown up our embassy in an asymetric…sorry ‘terrorist’ attack…., because they would not gain any benefit from it right? Its not like the US withdrew from the area shortly thereafter.
Oafish Response: Prefers fundamentalist over secular? This makes no sense and is completely wrong. Fundamentalist regimes do not form alliances of their own? There is no hard and fast rule here one way or the other. I dont think there is any question that from a security standpoint the US responses to 9/11 (with the benefit of hindsight) have been one bumbling mistake after another.
“Asymetric”: You are the one who is incorrect if you believe terrorist attacks on civillian populations serve no military value. Why do you think the allies firebombed Tokyo and Dresden? Just to be assholes for the sake of being assholes? Go back to the drawing board on this one.
Saudi Arabia: The stated goals of Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda include removing the US military from Saudi Arabia. The US has been removed (for the most part). Not much else to say about that. The US presence now in Iraq (which is dominated by Iran) is miniscule compared to what we had at one time in Saudi Arabia. Maybe they thought they could replace the bases in SA with those in Iraq but it sure isnt working out that way. (Ofaish response).
I think the response I wrote for you neatly summarized your own points. As far as the reason for invading afghanistan in the first place the public record indicates the US military & leadership establishment didnt really want to even after the 9/11 attacks and public outcry for ‘something’ to be done was the real reason. They were already planning to attack Iraq, where as you indicate the real resources were. Rumsfeld was smart and tried to fight using almost an entire force of proxie armies of drug funded warlords and to avoid entangling the US on the ground in Afghan because he knew how it would end.
I dont neccesarily disagree with anything you wrote regarding Russia & Chine, I just disagree with you that the US is really competent enough to be executing some super secret grand strategy of encirclement and denial of resources. Im sure it plays a part but the US is not nearly as all powerful and competent as you would like to believe.
LikeLike
Beirut?
I assume they would use directed energy because they can. It certainly saves resources, placement of bombs and use of dupes and patsies. And I am just going on appearance at bomb sites and a cursory knowledge of how kinetic bombs work versus directed energy. I could be full of shit – that must be said.
I am referring to “terrorist” incidents wherein civilians are targeted in market squares and mosques – there is no plausible reason for an internal resistance force to do that. Bombing embassies also serve no strategic purpose. It merely invites retaliation, justifies anything a military giant wants to do.
if you look at Middle East history you’ll see secular governments nder attack – Mossagegh, Nasser, Hussein, while fundamentalists and monarchies are left alone. religious factions are far easier to manipulate.
I don’t care what Osama or Al Qaeda says publicly. Osama was a tool to the day he died in 2001, and Al Qaeda is a multifunction tool, engaged in agitprop, false flag attacks, and as far as I can tell, far more of use to the US as anyone.
“Competence?” Historically, empires overreach and self-encircle. we’re no different though still amazingly powerful.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say “full of shit,” Mark. I’d say you sometimes look for evidence to support a theory, which some people confuse as ‘full of shit.’ They aren’t the same thing though.
However, that method will often obscure the truth.
If you read up on the King David Hotel bombing, it apparently had a political effect on the people of Britain and upon the Parliament.
LikeLike
By the way, that bombing appears to me to be far more naturally the result of explosives placed inside the building, using the destructive force to damage critical supports to cause the building to collapse – not this apparent uniform force applied to a very large surface area equally, tearing off the entire front facade and all of that, no reduction in force farther away from blast center.
LikeLike
Part of the blast dynamic may have been that they placed the explosives in the basement
LikeLike
That employs gravity to assist in the cause. Funny they knew the hotel and where in the hotel. A mole?
A missile is effective because it penetrates its target prior to exploding, directing explosove force outward. That’s why they use depleted uranium on missile tips, for more penetrating ability.
And this is what confuses me about Nairobi, even though your explanation regarding shockwaves and sonic booms and all of that makes sense – the explosive force dissipates by the cube of the distance, so that the damage ought to diminish further away from the blast. What I think you are saying is that the blast was so powerful that even 23 floors and blocks away up it was able to bust out windows. I guess I’ll have to settle for that. That was one big honkin’ explosion.
LikeLike
I agree with you for the most part Jack. There is some evidence that we have duel governments operating in the US, the public government and the shadow government. We know Iran/Contra happened, but we really don’t know that it quit happening.
It’s interesting to consider the fact that two of the main private contractors on the Twin Towers NIST report research, develop and sell directed energy weapons.
Could be just a coincidence I suppose. But really, how many companies in the US research develop and sell directed energy weapons and how many competent mechanical engineers and material engineers are there in the country? My guess is it’s a pretty high ratio.
LikeLike
OK, lets back up because I’m thinking we may be talking apples and oranges. The Nairobi bomb, according to what I read, was a truck bomb placed in the rear parking area next to the 5 story reinforced concrete building that housed the US Embassy. The 23 (or so) story building you refer to was on the other side of the 5 story Ufundi House. The Ufundi House completely collapsed.
There is no side view in your picture of the 23 story building and that is where the truck bomb was, with a five story building between. A sonic boom can blow out windows over a wide radius with a plane traveling at 10,000 feet in the air (almost 2 miles)
According to journalist David Fox from Zimbabwe (the first link in my last post) at a press conference 3 days after the attack “…Prudence Bushnell, the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya who was slightly injured in the blast, said the United States had no idea who was responsible.
“As to theories…I have none. Do you?” she asked a news conference.”
A couple of more observations. David fox reports widows blasted out up to 5 blocks away. This is one reason Dr Wood explains that explosive demolition of the WTC is highly unlikely. There just wasn’t the shock wave that are the hall mark of high explosives like dynamite or c-4 produce.
Another interesting thing, in the pictures, the rubble pile of the collapsed 5 story Ufundi House appears to be as tall as the rubble at ground zero of the WTC
the US did blame militant Islamists. Clinton said Bin Ladin was planning more attacks, but he didn’t blame him specifically for the embassy bombings and we did fire some cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan.
Just some info for your consideration.
PS have you watched The Power of Nightmares?
LikeLike
I yield on the bomb as you are making good sense. The time of the bombs was coincidental with PANC urging Clinton to invade Iraq, so that it not happening does not mean that tremendous pressure was not being exerted, via PNAC and Monica and all of that. Clinton proved smart and durable, and PNAC said a New Pearl Harbor was needed to make their desires come to fruition.
BTW, off subject, but Clinton was planning a full frontal attack on Social Security and had to back off due to his need to rally public support during the Monica affair. Send her a TY note.
LikeLike
Clinton also set the stage for the 2nd Great Depression with his deregulation of banking. I wasn’t a big fan of his and I hated being put in the position of having to defend him from Republican fake outrage over Monica while at the same time hating most of his policy initiatives.
LikeLike
It is hard for me to fathom that much explosive power from a vehicle, but what do I know. I am curious about prior uses of directed energy – as Wood says, we attempt to explain things we see in our existing frame of reference.
Osama was placed on the FBI’s ten most wanted list after the embassy bombings, with US sources saying that they were tracking his activities in Kenya at that time and so were quickly able to identify him as the culprit. Tarpley is very interesting in this stuff, saying that Osama was likely a plant or agent, perhaps a dupe kept under watch but not arrested – in fact, he had to be at large on 9/11 in order to be pinned with the crime. This would explain his being visited by a CIA agent while in an American hospital in Dubai for his failing kidneys shortly before 9/11. Most people have forgotten about his illness and his ongoing need for dialysis.
LikeLike
I have watched Power of Nightmares, think it is dead-on.
LikeLike