For whatever reason the media keeps reporting that the Canadian terrorists had 3 tons (6000 pounds) of ammonium nitrate which they then claim was 3 TIMES what was used in OKC.
Unless I'm missing something that's not right. McVeigh and company used 5000 pounds of ANFO so the numbers are real close to the same. Even if you consider the reports from Canada are using meteric tons, that still only 6600 US pounds.
I'm not minimizing this but I can't figure out how they get the 3X claim. If someone else can explain it, lemme know but it looks like another case of a reporter being real bad at math and the rest of them parroting the first.



Comments (12)
Perhaps that's because the ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by lawhawk | June 4, 2006 10:47 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Perhaps that's because the ammonium nitrate (AN) is mixed with fuel oil to create a bomb. The amount of ammonium nitrate is only a portion of the total amount, such that given the proportion of AN to fuel oil would result in a Canadian bomb three times the size of the OKC bomb.
1. Posted by lawhawk | June 4, 2006 10:47 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 10:47
2. Posted by Paul | June 4, 2006 11:02 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I thought of that and I did a google google searches to no avail.
Even still I don't think OKC was done by 2000 lbs of AN.
2. Posted by Paul | June 4, 2006 11:02 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 11:02
3. Posted by Paul | June 4, 2006 11:03 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Especailly since McVeigh (IRCC) used nitromethane and not diesel and was widely reported at the time..
3. Posted by Paul | June 4, 2006 11:03 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 11:03
4. Posted by Imhotep | June 4, 2006 11:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Glad to see you are back with us Paul.
I got worried about you on Friday;)
4. Posted by Imhotep | June 4, 2006 11:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 11:49
5. Posted by Mac Lorry | June 4, 2006 12:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Apparently 3X in the metric system has a different meaning than 3X in the imperial system. (/joke)
5. Posted by Mac Lorry | June 4, 2006 12:00 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 12:00
6. Posted by etaoin | June 4, 2006 12:07 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The RCMP officer very, very clearly stated that the amount the Canadians guys had was three times what McVeigh used.
6. Posted by etaoin | June 4, 2006 12:07 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 12:07
7. Posted by Paul | June 4, 2006 12:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
OK maybe he was the start of it and the reporters parrotted him. I still don't get the math.
7. Posted by Paul | June 4, 2006 12:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 12:14
8. Posted by Village Idiot | June 4, 2006 1:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You forgot to include the fuel oil in your computation
You are comparing OKC amonium nitrate versus Canadian muslim ANFO.
When you add in the fuel oil to make it an apples to apples comparison you get 3x
8. Posted by Village Idiot | June 4, 2006 1:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 13:39
9. Posted by Mike Boelter | June 4, 2006 3:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The fuel oil, diesel fuel or nitromethane, used to produce ANFO is almost negligible in the total weight.
The actual proportions can be gleaned by reading a transcript of the McVey trial but is is like 90 parts fertilizer and 10 parts diesel. Not terribly complex at all.
ANFO while very good at moving masses of material is only a low explosive, not a high explosive like dynamite, TNT or C4.
9. Posted by Mike Boelter | June 4, 2006 3:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 15:11
10. Posted by agesilaus | June 4, 2006 3:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Explosive force increases by the cube of the amount of explosive, in other words to double the explosive force you have to increase the amount by a fact of 2 cubed or 8 times as much explosive. So even if it was three times as much the effect would be much smaller than it sounds. Not to say it would be inconsequential of course.
10. Posted by agesilaus | June 4, 2006 3:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 15:23
11. Posted by Brent | June 4, 2006 4:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Especailly since McVeigh (IRCC) used nitromethane and not diesel and was widely reported at the time..
--------------------------------------------------
Nitromethane is weird stuff. People think that because it's used as a racing fuel that it burns very fast, which is wrong. You can pour a puddle of it on the ground and drop a match on it and it won't light. Actually, you'd have a hard time getting it lit at all. Now take a hammer and smack the concrete that the nitro is puddled on and you'll be picking concrete bits out of your skin and probably need hearing aids.
Just a week or so ago a crew member of a A/fuel dragster was injured when the engine exploded in the pits during a warm-up. Somehow a small amount of nitro leaked into the cylinder when it was just sitting there. The teams always purge the fuel lines with alcohol to make sure there is no nitro in them before starting the engine. They also remove the plugs and crank the engine to make sure there is none sitting inside the cylinders on top of the pistons.
When the team went to crank the engine over the leaked nitro exploded and a section of the block was blown off and into the crewman's legs.
11. Posted by Brent | June 4, 2006 4:48 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 16:48
12. Posted by Bob K | June 4, 2006 11:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Acording to a Fox news article I found they made two purchases totaling 4000lbs of AN. The 5000lb figure could have come from them having inquired about renting a truck with a 5000lb carrying capacity.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26758,00.html
12. Posted by Bob K | June 4, 2006 11:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 4, 2006 23:45