Two bombs inside Murrah Federal Building?

[911kongen]

Whats the source for this claim?

[HeyLeroy]

Dunno, where'd you hear it?

[patchbunny]

There have been claims of other bombs found inside the building rubble, but those were training devices from the ATF office inside the building. Only the truck bomb was responsible for the damage.

[fuelair]

Whats the source for this claim?

It's been going around since at least a couple of months after the bombing - first version I heard was supposedly (a phrase meaning no citations, names, sources) an engineer had said there was no way the explosion from where the truck was could have done the damage the way it was done. I, btb, am not an engineer but I do have chemistry and physics in my background and source/damage photos looked quite reasonable to me for the explosion as described in the press.

[Infoexcavator]

Whats the source for this claim?

One of the Alex Jones films, I think it was Road to Tyranny, has a clip from local news talking about how the authorities are removing additional bombs from the building, check it out.

[Algebra34]

One of the Alex Jones films, I think it was Road to Tyranny, has a clip from local news talking about how the authorities are removing additional bombs from the building, check it out.

Yes. It was originally reported that agents found other exlposive devices in the building.

HKsQKc2eP-8

[LONGTABBER PE]

It's been going around since at least a couple of months after the bombing - first version I heard was supposedly (a phrase meaning no citations, names, sources) an engineer had said there was no way the explosion from where the truck was could have done the damage the way it was done. I, btb, am not an engineer but I do have chemistry and physics in my background and source/damage photos looked quite reasonable to me for the explosion as described in the press.

He would be correct

[JoeyDonuts]

He would be correct

How's that?

[LONGTABBER PE]

How's that?


In short without going deep discussion- The purported configuration and construction of the alleged bomb ( assuming the 13 drum story with cannon fuzed sausages) doesnt have that much energy

[JoeyDonuts]

In short without going deep discussion- The purported configuration and construction of the alleged bomb ( assuming the 13 drum story with cannon fuzed sausages) doesnt have that much energy

Well, without any reliable evidence I'm aware of to indicate additional explosives, we have to assume that McVeigh/Nichols' configuration did this:

The effects of the blast were equivalent to over 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of TNT, and could be heard and felt up to 55 miles (89 km) away. Seismometers at Science Museum Oklahoma in Oklahoma City, 4.3 miles (6.9 km) away, and in Norman, Oklahoma, 16.1 miles (25.9 km) away, recorded the blast as measuring approximately 3.0 on the Richter scale.

Evidence used in his trial also seems to indicate he tamped the sides to initiate a shaped-charge effect. I've also read some experts describing the explosive effect as thermobaric.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Well, without any reliable evidence I'm aware of to indicate additional explosives, we have to assume that McVeigh/Nichols' configuration did this:



Evidence used in his trial also seems to indicate he tamped the sides to initiate a shaped-charge effect. I've also read some experts describing the explosive effect as thermobaric.

Well, without any reliable evidence I'm aware of to indicate additional explosives, we have to assume that McVeigh/Nichols' configuration did this:

No, "we" ( those of us who have used explosives for demolitions and personally set off several hundred like devices for training) dont have to assume it- the physics are wrong for whats described

Evidence used in his trial also seems to indicate he tamped the sides to initiate a shaped-charge effect. I've also read some experts describing the explosive effect as thermobaric

Both are red herrings and incorrect ( altho I'll admit he probably "believed' he tamped the charge and told everyone that but thats what happens when Green Beret wanna be's read too much Soldier of Fortune and every bomb making book in Paladin presses inventory without actually attending Demolitions School)

[JoeyDonuts]

No, "we" ( those of us who have used explosives for demolitions and personally set off several hundred like devices for training) dont have to assume it- the physics are wrong for whats described

Wrong according to whom? I'm guessing you have some kind of EOD experience. I'll ask the same question I ask of everyone who hints at the official version of a major event like this being wrong. If the explosive in the Ryder truck didn't blow up the Murrah Building, what did? Are you alleging some kind of cover-up, or simply that the forensic analysis of the explosive used was off the mark?

Both are red herrings and incorrect ( altho I'll admit he probably "believed' he tamped the charge and told everyone that but thats what happens when Green Beret wanna be's read too much Soldier of Fortune and every bomb making book in Paladin presses inventory without actually attending Demolitions School)

Neither are deliberate attempts to force attention from the issue at hand.

From a Forensic Seismology presentation. Page 32 presents a graphic sketch drawn by Timothy McVeigh.

http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses/ge342/Forensic%20Seismology-revised.pdf

Do you have information that what's presented here is incorrect?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Wrong according to whom? I'm guessing you have some kind of EOD experience. I'll ask the same question I ask of everyone who hints at the official version of a major event like this being wrong. If the explosive in the Ryder truck didn't blow up the Murrah Building, what did? Are you alleging some kind of cover-up, or simply that the forensic analysis of the explosive used was off the mark?



Neither are deliberate attempts to force attention from the issue at hand.

From a Forensic Seismology presentation. Page 32 presents a graphic sketch drawn by Timothy McVeigh.

http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses/ge342/Forensic%20Seismology-revised.pdf

Do you have information that what's presented here is incorrect?

Wrong according to whom? I'm guessing you have some kind of EOD experience.

Yep, several decades worth

I'll ask the same question I ask of everyone who hints at the official version of a major event like this being wrong. If the explosive in the Ryder truck didn't blow up the Murrah Building, what did?

something with a hell of a lot more punch- I would guess something in the PETN or RDX class or about 5000 lbs of C-4 similar to the Kohbar towers.

Are you alleging some kind of cover-up, or simply that the forensic analysis of the explosive used was off the mark?

I'm saying the forensic analysis ( of what was officially released) is beyond stupid- anything beyond that is anyones guess. Its a case of I cant tell you what did happen but I can tell you what didnt.

Do you have information that what's presented here is incorrect

Its neither in relation to the construction of the device.

[Longfellow]

At How Stuff Works (http://www.howstuffworks.com/) they have portions of a show that aired on the Discovery Channel concerning the Murrah building bombing. The show dealt with most aspects of the event, including those raised here, and, in my opinion, quite handily refuted all of the conspiracy theories surrounding that day.

Conspiracy Test: More Than One Bomb (http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/31353-conspiracy-test-more-than-one-bomb-video.htm).
Conspiracy Test: The Columns of the Murrah Building (http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/31351-conspiracy-test-the-columns-of-the-murrah-building-video.htm).
Conspiracy Test: Oklahoma Bombing Damage (http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/31352-conspiracy-test-oklahoma-bombing-damage-video.htm).

It was rather telling to watch General Parton basically hand-wave aside the data collected which directly refuted his beliefs. This is the exact same thing that members of the '9/11 truth movement' do: I reject your reality and substitute my own. [/adam_savage_mode]

[Skeptic Guy]

Is it me, or does it seem of late that there is a lot more acceptance here of conspiracy theories, other than 9/11?

[LONGTABBER PE]

At How Stuff Works (http://www.howstuffworks.com/) they have portions of a show that aired on the Discovery Channel concerning the Murrah building bombing. The show dealt with most aspects of the event, including those raised here, and, in my opinion, quite handily refuted all of the conspiracy theories surrounding that day.

Conspiracy Test: More Than One Bomb (http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/31353-conspiracy-test-more-than-one-bomb-video.htm).
Conspiracy Test: The Columns of the Murrah Building (http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/31351-conspiracy-test-the-columns-of-the-murrah-building-video.htm).
Conspiracy Test: Oklahoma Bombing Damage (http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/31352-conspiracy-test-oklahoma-bombing-damage-video.htm).

It was rather telling to watch General Parton basically hand-wave aside the data collected which directly refuted his beliefs. This is the exact same thing that members of the '9/11 truth movement' do: I reject your reality and substitute my own. [/adam_savage_mode]

Theres no question this was a single detonation- it just wasnt done by the device claimed to have done it

[Longfellow]

Theres no question this was a single detonation- it just wasnt done by the device claimed to have done it

You are basically hand-waving aside a program that went into great detail about the device McVeigh used and concluded said device could indeed cause the damage to the columns which led to the collapse. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

[LONGTABBER PE]

You are basically hand-waving aside a program that went into great detail about the device McVeigh used and concluded said device could indeed cause the damage to the columns which led to the collapse. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

No, I'm "hand waving" a program with talking heads who really dont know what they are talking about and playing for ratings to an audience that doesnt understand what to look for or what they are looking at.

That "design" turned the demo world's ( with many of us anyway) BS meter to redline to the point that at least 4 ( that I personally know about and witnessed 2) were constructed just to show the fallacy. Bragg, Elgin, Benning and FLW did and ( if memory serves) Eglin ( on the range past Camp Rudder) and Benning guys published theirs. ( and that went away real fast)

The evidence is in the construction and materials and the configuration.

[funk de fino]

I would still prefer to see a bit of sourcing or evidence. Not just opinion.

[SnidelyW]

Having read the official report of the incident, and having spoken personally to rescue techs involved in the rescue, and also having experience in Heavy Urban Search and Rescue, I can tell you the 'pile' is a pretty small place, as communication between rescue teams must be maintained at all times. Nothing happens in one sector of the incident without all teams instantly being informed, as what is done in one sector can immediately affect what one is doing in another.
IF any unusual device, part of a device, explosive residue or blast pattern had been observed at any time, all teams would have been notified of the nature of the observation (and its implications) and evacuation would have ocurred if required.
At the Murragh building, this did indeed happen, twice, where rescue efforts had to stop for evacuation after the need was demonstrated.

[Longfellow]

I would still prefer to see a bit of sourcing or evidence. Not just opinion.

Exactly. I realize LONGTABBER PE claims decades of experience but it still feels too much like an appeal to authority fallacy for my tastes. Believe what I say just because I say so.

[ktesibios]

Here's something that might be of interest:

Blast Loading and Response of Murrah Building. (http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/GetDoc.asp?id=1306&type=d)

The authors begin by estimating the energy yield of the bomb (in equivalent weight of TNT) from the dimensions of the crater excavated under the truck, using formulae empirically derived by military researchers (who have an understandable interest in the science of blowing **** up). They go on to compute the pressure waveforms experienced by columns and floor slabs, again using data obtained from the military, the loads imposed on these elements by the blast, their capacity to withstand these loadings and whether, where and how failures would occur, checking their conclusions against the known post-blast state of the individual elements.

They don't seem to find anything implausible about the damage being caused by a truck loaded with explosives, nor any need for any exotic bomb design.

So what's wrong here? If a rent-a-truck stuffed with ANFO could not produce the observed effects, how is it that a team of experienced forensic engineers didn't notice this? Why would they effectively support the "official story" in a technical paper published by ACSE?

Will our resident blowing-***-up expert enlighten us?

[JoeyDonuts]

Bragg, Elgin, Benning and FLW did and ( if memory serves) Eglin ( on the range past Camp Rudder) and Benning guys published theirs. ( and that went away real fast)

Went away how? If four different teams at four different military bases published studies on the blast, where are they? Have you seen them? Who has copies? Who was involved so we may contact them?

This begs another question - what would these teams be basing this analysis on, if it even happened? Access to the evidence and crime scene forensics?

Or is it what YOU appear to be doing - "Well, I've never heard of such a thing happening. It isn't what I think should have destroyed the building, so therefore it couldn't have been."

This is akin to the "all-steel skyscrapers never collapsed before 9/11" crap.

No offense, but you can make your avatar whatever you want - when you make claims like this without sourcing, I'm going to throw up the BS flag. It also doesn't make your experience look that credible either. Just sayin'.

[LashL]

Bumping for Longtabber to provide sources and evidence in support of his assertions.

[JoeyDonuts]

Bumping for Longtabber to provide sources and evidence in support of his assertions.

His assertions are based on his *supposed* decades-long career in the US Army Special Forces. I've had an interesting PM dialogue back and forth with him, and he's claimed to be involved in a lot of cloak-and-dagger stuff.

It didn't add up to me, so I pinged the Bullshido community (this is the site that JREF member Phrost runs). There's a lot of verified ex-military on there (myself included) and I wanted to get some input from anyone connected with the US Army regarding what he's claimed on this and other threads.

From initial observations, it doesn't appear good. I've sent feelers out to POWNETWORK.ORG and the SF community board SOCNET.COM regarding the possibility that he's done the things he says he's done, but the initial consensus from the Bullshido community is that his claims of experience are highly suspect.

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=90453

A word of warning, there is no autocensor on this site, so you'll see an occasional four-letter word.

My handle is "Ronin497." You'll notice the "military" tag on mine and other posts. These aren't just given out - there's a verification process.

I've invited LONGTABBER PE to that thread and await his response. There are folks on that site who are in a position to verify his claims much, much better than I.

[LashL]

His assertions are based on his *supposed* decades-long career in the US Army Special Forces.


Yeah, I noticed. That's why I bumped the thread for him to provide evidence in support of his assertions - because so far he has done nothing but post fallacious appeals to his own alleged authority without providing anything at all to back up his empty posts.

If he continues to refuse to support his bald assertions, it will be abundantly clear that he is incapable of doing so, and that he is just making things up.

I can't comment on the rest of your post, Joey, as I have not yet read the link, but I will read it and comment further once I've done so.

[SnidelyW]

Just to remind everyone, here is the official strength of the blast, as quoted from this document;

"Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Oklahoma City Bombing (FEMA 277)

The focus of this report is on the nine-story portion of the Murrah Building, which incurred significant damage and partial collapse as a result of the April 19, 1995, bombing. The blast was equivalent to the detonation of approximately 4,000 pounds of TNT."

FEMA 277 refers to the publication number.

[SnidelyW]

Just another thing... here is the NIST case study reference for blast damage of the Murrah building.

The details of the blast schematic can be found on page 11 and 12 of this document

bfrl.nist.gov/861/861pubs/collapse/workshop/5.WorkshopSlides(Murrah%20Bldg).pdf

Blast Response Analyses are on page 28, and Progressive Collapse Analyses on page 29.
After that it gets pretty technical, so if the structural engineers wish to 'splain it, I am most appreciative.

[SnidelyW]

Because of the restrictions placed on me regarding posting links, add the triple w to the link above and you'll be there.

[SnidelyW]

Longtabber mentions the Eglin test, so let's quote from the Jasper report, who mentions the Eglin test specifics.

As I have shown above, the official figure is 4000 lbs of TNT equivalent.

Let's quote Jasper;

"Three different explosives tests were conducted on the Eglin Test
Structure. The first test used 704 pounds of Tritonal, which is
equivalent to 830 pounds of TNT, or roughly 2,200 pounds of a properly
prepared ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) mixture. The Tritonal was
contained in a light aluminum case and was placed outside the
structure at ground level 25 feet from the vertical surface of the
40-foot side wall. This test most closely parallels the truck bomb at
the Murrah Building and provides important parametric data for
assessing blast-wave damage at the Oklahoma City site. Besides being
external to the ETS, the aluminum casing provided a container similar
to the light shell of the Ryder truck. Like the truck bomb, the
Tritonal test attempted to effect damage to the concrete structure
with an air-couple blast wave without the help of heavy shrapnel."

Now, if I am interpreting this correctly, this test used the equivalent of 830 pounds of TNT, which, if my math doesn't fail me, is only 20.75% as strong as the original blast.

"Closely parallels"? Huh?

How can any meaningful comparison be made?

[SnidelyW]

"Multiple Blasts: More Evidence by William F. Jasper"
whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/multibla.html

[triforcharity]

Seriously?? Your using WRH as a REPUTIBLE source??

[kookbreaker]

His assertions are based on his *supposed* decades-long career in the US Army Special Forces. I've had an interesting PM dialogue back and forth with him, and he's claimed to be involved in a lot of cloak-and-dagger stuff.

It didn't add up to me, so I pinged the Bullshido community (this is the site that JREF member Phrost runs). There's a lot of verified ex-military on there (myself included) and I wanted to get some input from anyone connected with the US Army regarding what he's claimed on this and other threads.

From initial observations, it doesn't appear good. I've sent feelers out to POWNETWORK.ORG and the SF community board SOCNET.COM regarding the possibility that he's done the things he says he's done, but the initial consensus from the Bullshido community is that his claims of experience are highly suspect.

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=90453
.

That was revealing.

[Newtons Bit]

The other exceptionally important thing to blast effects is the stand-off distant. And if I recall correctly, the reflected pressure on a structure is a function of the distance from the bomb to the target cubed. In other words, a bomb is 8 times more powerful than an equivalent bomb twice as far away.

The Murrah building, however, was bad engineering: it was built completely to code. There was no continuous rebar throughout the entire structure. The reinforcement placed was only at locations where there would be tensile stresses in the structure. This is a cheap way to build a building. However if the load paths are significantly changed due to say a column being damaged or destroyed the system becomes brittle and has no manner in which to redistribute the load.

This has been fixed in ACI (the building code for reinforced concrete structure in the USA), specifically section 7.13.

[JoeyDonuts]

That was revealing.

It gets better. I've heard from the head of POWNETWORK, and gotten some responses from the Spec Ops community at SOCNET.com.

[kookbreaker]

It gets better. I've heard from the head of POWNETWORK, and gotten some responses from the Spec Ops community at SOCNET.com.

I do so love it when wannabees get called out.

[LashL]

Seriously?? Your using WRH as a REPUTIBLE source??


If I'm reading SnidelyW's posts correctly, he is not commenting on WRH's veracity but rather he found that article about the Eglin test there, and does not agree that the Eglin test as described there supports Longtabber's assertions.

[GreNME]

It gets better. I've heard from the head of POWNETWORK, and gotten some responses from the Spec Ops community at SOCNET.com.

Thanks, man. I'm glad someone called this guy on his assertions of credibility.

[SnidelyW]

LashL is correct in the clarification. I was using Jasper and his description of the Eglin test to refute Longtabber.

I thought that was clear, but apologize if I inadvertently impressed the opposite.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

It gets better. I've heard from the head of POWNETWORK, and gotten some responses from the Spec Ops community at SOCNET.com.

I hope you'll be able to share what you've found. I've been manfully resisting callling him out on the PanAm103 threads to avoid derailing them, but I'd dearly love to see him pwned.

[JoeyDonuts]

I hope you'll be able to share what you've found. I've been manfully resisting callling him out on the PanAm103 threads to avoid derailing them, but I'd dearly love to see him pwned.

This thread...nay, this site, isn't really the place for it if the ULTIMA1 debacle was any lesson for us all.

I'll keep those of you who want to know appraised via PM. Already had a few lookie-loos.

[uk_dave]

It gets better. I've heard from the head of POWNETWORK, and gotten some responses from the Spec Ops community at SOCNET.com.

Crikey!! There's so much testosterone in ******* that thread, I feel the need to **** a ***** with a large ***** upside down ****** in a pink frilly ********** egg whisk.

Or something.

[JoeyDonuts]

Crikey!! There's so much testosterone in ******* that thread, I feel the need to **** a ***** with a large ***** upside down ****** in a pink frilly ********** egg whisk.

Or something.

That might be because we haven't had the British come through and gentrify everything. "Who Dares Wins" and all that rot.

Also, it's a Martial Arts BS forum populated with military people, owned by Phrost.

Even the female posters pee pure androgen.

[CurtC]

JoeyDonuts - my guess is that (your avatar) looks like the signal from the standard TV color bars test pattern. Am I right?

[Klimax]

JoeyDonuts - my guess is that (your avatar) looks like the signal from the standard TV color bars test pattern. Am I right?

My guess is that it is screen for a naval radar or something like that. Those shapes look much like ships "scanned" by radar or maybe output of sonar.
(I have never served in any army and never got chance to play or observe equipment with an exception on a civilian boat in Italy)

[JoeyDonuts]

The goat-man is correct.

That's a representation of NTSC color bars as plotted on a waveform monitor.

I'm not sure what kind of naval vessel would create a return that looked like that - but I bet it would look really friggin' goofy.

Radar returns aren't normally plotted on an oscilloscope, they're usually plotted on an MTI (moving target indicator) display. That'll give you a rough idea of the target's shape and density (depending on atmospherics and the radar's operating parameters.) One exception to this is certain air search radars where establishing whether or not you have multiple targets or just one large one is kind of important. It's also important to determine if one of your contacts just had a smaller one break off of it at a high rate of speed - something you want to know as a fire controlman or EW-type.

I used to be an EW, working the passive side of radar detection, so I would be looking at the waveforms of various radar sets. This is essential in classification - and I can think of a handful of radars I've seen whose plotted waveform might resemble an NTSC color bar pattern - all of them airborne equipment with staggered pulse repitition frequencies (to confound jamming efforts and improve target range resolution)

As far as sonar's concerned, the only plots I ever saw were what's called "waterfall displays." I only have a basic understanding of these, but the only resemblance to an oscilloscope is that they're really bright green and hurt your eyes just as much.

[Klimax]

The goat-man is correct.

That's a representation of NTSC color bars as plotted on a waveform monitor.

I'm not sure what kind of naval vessel would create a return that looked like that - but I bet it would look really friggin' goofy.

Radar returns aren't normally plotted on an oscilloscope, they're usually plotted on an MTI (moving target indicator) display. That'll give you a rough idea of the target's shape and density (depending on atmospherics and the radar's operating parameters.) One exception to this is certain air search radars where establishing whether or not you have multiple targets or just one large one is kind of important. It's also important to determine if one of your contacts just had a smaller one break off of it at a high rate of speed - something you want to know as a fire controlman or EW-type.

I used to be an EW, working the passive side of radar detection, so I would be looking at the waveforms of various radar sets. This is essential in classification - and I can think of a handful of radars I've seen whose plotted waveform might resemble an NTSC color bar pattern - all of them airborne equipment with staggered pulse repitition frequencies (to confound jamming efforts and improve target range resolution)

As far as sonar's concerned, the only plots I ever saw were what's called "waterfall displays." I only have a basic understanding of these, but the only resemblance to an oscilloscope is that they're really bright green and hurt your eyes just as much.

Thanks.

[LashL]

Looks like LONGTABBER has had his COMEUPPANCE.

Nice work, JoeyDonuts.

[JoeyDonuts]

Looks like LONGTABBER has had his COMEUPPANCE.

Nice work, JoeyDonuts.

ETA: To the best of my knowledge, LONGTABBER PE has yet to put forth any evidence in support of his claims of military service and more specifically his alleged time in the Special Forces. The POWNETWORK is doing what they do best now, but as of right now we cannot say for a fact that his claims are fabricated. However, the consensus in the actual "been there, done that" community is that his claims are too extravagant to be believable, and don't make sense to them.

I don't take any pleasure in it whatsoever. For everything he claimed in error, he seemed to be for all his faults intelligent, articulate, and befriended a lot of people. I wouldn't even consider him a "bad" person.

However, there is a line you do not cross. Claiming SF affiliation when you know it's false is like stepping on Superman's cape. Were you to look at the letter of the law, it also puts that person in violation of the additions to Title 18, U.S.C. signed into law by Pres. Bush in 2005 - the "Stolen Valor" act.

No matter how nice a guy he may have been, one single "oh-****" of this magnitude undoes a thousand atta-boys. If he had been the real-deal high speed war machine he claimed, one or two emails to the right people would have resulted in his complete vindication and my profuse and heartfelt apologies.

Anyone who's seen the Bullshido thread knows what he decided to respond with instead.

I need a shower.

[/derail]

[CurtC]

The goat-man is correct.

That's a representation of NTSC color bars as plotted on a waveform monitor.

I prefer the name Mr. Gruff (http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/#ATHEIST) for my avatar.

I could see it's a TV signal on an old Tektronix analog oscilloscope. Right after the low part in the middle, there's the color burst followed by a line of video. It's evenly spaced sections of saturated colors, decreasing in luminosity.

[JoeyDonuts]

I prefer the name Mr. Gruff (http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/#ATHEIST) for my avatar.

If you find an Atheist in your neighborhood,
TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!

HAAAAAAHAAAA!!! That is hilarious.

I could see it's a TV signal on an old Tektronix analog oscilloscope. Right after the low part in the middle, there's the color burst followed by a line of video. It's evenly spaced sections of saturated colors, decreasing in luminosity.

Correct, and in spades. I've had to use it less and less, as most content that gets delivered to my station over IP-based services like the Pathfire network is already optimized. But occasionally, we'll pull feeds in off of a satellite-based distribution network, and it might be an analog feed. The ol' Tectronix earns its money then.