I have commented before on the technical merits of General Partin’s summary report. If you search the archives you will probably find the posts.
But why go into the technical details when the conclusion of the report is absurd?
Why would the “government” take the risky action of pre-positioning small charges only on one side of the third floor of building, adjacent to the truck bomb, when they knew these charges likely would not bring down the whole building? Why leave evidence that had to be brought down in haste later on?
Why leave survivors -—the same people who might have seen the small charges being placed. People willing to kill 168 people are just as willing to kill 400 to get rid of the evidence. Total destruction would have made the case against the VRWC even better.
So why place small charges that would only mimic what the truck bomb itself would do, instead of destroying the whole building? This is the question a thoughtful person would ask.
The "government"? Where in the world did that come from?
I'm thinking the more likely scenario that the Clinton administration would have been wanting to cover up was a complex operation in place. Would have been extremely difficult to explain how these two local yodels would know how to do something right out of a "Mission Impossible" episode.
If there is anything to hide, and clearly there is otherwise they would not have 'washed' the tapes, then I would think that would be it.