The process was described by senior FBI explosives expert Dr. Frederic Whitehurst during his testimony at the trial on August 14, 1995.
Sewage pipes in the skyscraper broke during the explosion. depositing 80 gallons of sewage throughout the wreckage. The Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) asked Dr. Whitehurst to analyze some of this sewage, thinking it was an explosive substance. "Transcript. pg. 16333".
Dr. Whitehurst concluded that there was no sound scientific basis for the government's public claim that a urea nitrate bomb had been the source of the explosion. When he refused to recant or to doctor his reports to support the urea nitrate bomb theory, the FBI used an unqualified lab technician to testify that the so-called urea nitrate found at the scene was consistent with a urea nitrate bomb.
Dr. Whitehurst submitted two blind test samples to the lab technician. Whitehurst had prepared one sample by urinating into a laboratory flask. The other was a sample of commercial grade fertilizer prepared by FBI Agent Burmeister. The lab technician found that both samples tested positive for urea nitrate, the explosive component of the infamous fertilizer bomb.
In other words, Dr. Whitehurst proved that the lab technician, like the ATF, couldn't tell a bomb from sewage.
The following pages are taken from the transcript of the New York trial for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. The extracts begin at page 16315 in the original transcript, and continue consecutively through to page 16354.
Back: Death Gallery Entrance
Home: Museum Entrance
Search: Museum
Text
Many people who distrust the mainstream media have turned to alternate news sources, some of which are Internet based. Unfortunately, many of these alternate sources of news simply promote an alternate series of lies. These alternate lies are of course dressed up as "exposés." But you can easily tell the phonies from the real thing. The information in the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum is an acid test.
Does your news source promote Mike McNulty's video, Waco: The Rules of Engagement or wring its hands because the Davidian law suit against the government failed? (See Waco Documentary Is A Hoax! and Waco Suits for Waco Suckers.) Does your alternate news source carry promotional pieces about rebuilding the Davidian church in Waco and mouth nice words about "healing"? (See The Cover-up Church.)
Remember, since ancient times, inquiries into questionable deaths have started with the bodies of the victims. If your news source won't give you an honest and full account of the forensic information on Waco, or if it does not have a link to the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum ... your alternate news has failed a fundamental acid test.
