linked - Investigating the Terror

FBI FD-302 detailing Ramzi Yousef proffer session, February 13 th 1995
After Yousef was captured in Pakistan he made an extended confession to the
FBI and even had a proffer session with the FBI and States Attorney’s office
after being flown back to New York. In this proffer session he outlined the
bomb plot, in particular the make-up of the bomb.
The description offered by Yousef contradicts what Murad said Yousef told
him in various ways. Yousef told the FBI that the main charge was urea
nitrate in a wooden box, not nitric acid in a drum. He said there were three
explosive ‘boosters’, not just two as described by Murad. The first was 30kg
of dynamite, the second 20kg of ammonium nitrate, nitromethane and
analine and the third was 50kg of thermite. There was no mention of
astrolite, and the lead azide, as Yousef told it, was part of a detonation
mechanism and not part of the main charge.
The two descriptions do not match up at all, and while Murad might have
been confused or mistaken, this does open up the question of what was used
to bomb the WTC.
Extract from US Fire Administration report on WTC bombing, 1993
The damage from the World Trade Center was considerable, killing six people
and injuring over 1000. These extracts from a US Fire Administration report
on the lessons learned from the WTC blast detail the impact of the explosion.
The truck bomb apparently blasted holes through several floors of the
underground parking garage, including a 5000 square foot hole in the floor
above the explosion.
Could a urea nitrate bomb of that size do such damage? Similar questions
have been asked of the ANFO (similar to UNFO) bomb apparently used in the
Oklahoma City bombing of April 1995, though there is far more video and
photographic footage available from that bomb site. Tests carried out by the
US Air Force following the Oklahoma City bombing suggest that bombs of that
type and size cannot do what was seen in both the Alfred P Murrah building
and the WRC, particular the brisance damage that is a tell tale sign of high
explosives.
Testimony of Frederic Whitehurst, US vs Rahman et al, August 14 th 1995
The dispute over what was used to bomb the WTC came to a head in the US
vs Rahman et al trial when the defence called FBI explosives lab expert Fred
Whitehurst to the stand. Whitehurst had begun blowing the whistle on the
shoddy investigations carried out by the FBI explosives lab before the trial, in
particular the testimony of the FBI expert called in the Salameh et al trial the
previous year.