"smoke bombs"?

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
Much speculation among those who consider the bombing a hoax carries the implication that the bombs were somehow harmless "smoke bombs" or similar. It seems to me that blasts of the magnitude we all saw and heard must cause some damage (to hearing if nothing else), but I have little knowledge in this area. Is it really possible that such large explosions, even if "unarmed" can cause no damage to person or property?

(This would impact upon the "actors" theory, because they would have to have agreed to stand in the vicinity of the explosions).



 
Last edited by a moderator:

someGuy

New Member
Much speculation among those who consider the bombing a hoax carries the implication that the bombs were somehow harmless "smoke bombs" or similar. It seems to me that blasts of the magnitude we all saw and heard must cause some damage (to hearing if nothing else), but I have little knowledge in this area. Is it really possible that such large explosions, even if "unarmed" can cause no damage to person or property?

(This would impact upon the "actors" theory, because they would have to have agreed to stand in the vicinity of the explosions).

Wow, can't believe such theory exists...

No damage to person or property ?

No [...] way, not as close as it was to people
Even if it was "just" fireworks, they were all gathered around the charge, the closest would have been badly burnt


See his pants ?
See how he's screaming ?
See how small the blast is compared to Boston's one ?

I suspect his hand is severly burnt and he might have lost some fingers


see this one also, injuries are clearly shown




Edit:

Here's a document that describes effects of blast pressure on structures and the human body
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/NIOSH-125/125-ExplosionsandRefugeChambers.pdf

It covers "the effects of increasing blast pressure"/"long duration blast"
Not sure it's really what you're looking for but there's vocabulary (PSI) that can give you clues to narrow your search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_injury

An individual in the path of an explosion will be subjected not only to excess barometric pressure, but to pressure from the high-velocity wind traveling directly behind the shock front of the blast wave. The magnitude of damage due the blast wave is dependent on:

1) the peak of the initial positive pressure wave (bearing in mind that an overpressure of 60-80 PSI or 414-552 kPa is considered potentially lethal);
2) the duration of the overpressure;
3) the medium in which it explodes;
4) the distance from the incident blast wave;
5) the degree of focusing due to a confined area or walls.

For example, explosions near or within hard solid surfaces become amplified two to nine times due to shock wave reflection. As a result, individuals between the blast and a building generally suffer two to three times the degree of injury compared to those in open spaces.[6]

Pressure cookers can resist to 15 PSI, therefore since they were totally ruined, it is safe to say the pressure inside was way over 15 PSI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_cooking

Edit2:
[SIZE=+2]Ha, this looks more WAY MORE appropriate[/SIZE]

There is common set of equations which can be used for calculation of blast wave from explosive charges, it's called [SIZE=+2] Sadovsky formulas[/SIZE]. It works regardless on nature of explosion and depends only on TNT equivalent of explosive charge.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=15150&page=2#pid197153
Good luck with that
I don't know math, but this is definitely what you need to prove your point once you know what's exactly the TNT equivalent of the Boston Bombing charges

But I can't find any source mentioning the TNT equivalent...
Maybe it's a question to ask to authorities
 

Attachments

  • Blast Effect Calculation(1).pdf
    155.1 KB · Views: 39,907

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Calculate the volume of the pressure cooker (I heard 6 liters) and then figure out how much explosives (in this case the powder from fire works) could fit into that volume. Once you know the volume of explosives used there should be a way to calculate the TNT equivalent.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
Same thing for government instigated false flag operations.

Except this wasn't a "government instigated false flag" operation.

Funny how people who weren't there think they know so much based on a few pictures. These were not smoke bombs. They were actual bombs. I know what a bomb looks like and I know what blood looks like; I witnessed both that day. It's also funny how absolutely NO ONE at the finish line can corroborate anything the conspiracy theorists claim. No one.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
What gets me often are the folks that see some videos or other items and then decide they know what happened. We saw it here with the poster that "knew' a missile hit the West Feed plant or the folks that live thousands of miles from the Gulf of Mexico that insist that the 'Gulf is dead'.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
What gets me often are the folks that see some videos or other items and then decide they know what happened. We saw it here with the poster that "knew' a missile hit the West Feed plant or the folks that live thousands of miles from the Gulf of Mexico that insist that the 'Gulf is dead'.

You simply cannot look at two pictures and know exactly what happened, yet conspiracy theorists think you can. Say you have two pictures of yourself taken five minutes apart. In the first picture, you look fine. In the second picture, you have some blood on your face and you look beaten up. Now, a conspiracy theorist would say that they know 100% what happened in between those pictures being taken and how you got beat up, even without a credible shred of evidence. That's how they operate and that's how they're operating right now in regards to the marathon.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And what could have happened is your dog jumped in your face! I have my teeth chipped from a slam from a dog's head and I had a scratched cornea from my puppy in Jan and I have had a bloody nose from a dog.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
And what could have happened is your dog jumped in your face! I have my teeth chipped from a slam from a dog's head and I had a scratched cornea from my puppy in Jan and I have had a bloody nose from a dog.

A conspiracy theorist would say you faked it, even though they have no evidence of it.
 

Elfenlied

Member
Calculate the volume of the pressure cooker (I heard 6 liters) and then figure out how much explosives (in this case the powder from fire works) could fit into that volume. Once you know the volume of explosives used there should be a way to calculate the TNT equivalent.
That wouldn't work, you need the TNT equivalent for the blast effect, not for the amount of energy. You can burn TNT, it will release more energy than detonating it, but it won't create a pressure wave.

I can't blame people for distrusting the official version when the media have been talking about deadly shrapnel at supersonic speeds. CNN even showed a video of a pressure cooker bomb "similar to the ones used in Boston". There was nothing similar about it, they used high explosives in the test (you can see the detonation front traveling through the detcord in the slow motion).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD_Ufn1ROw0
If high explosives had been used, death toll would have been much higher, I believe twelve pressure cooker bombs in India killed 300 people.
The correct model for the Boston bombs would be a steam boiler explosion. In my opinion, the most likely cause for the deaths would be the lid or the main part of the pressure cooker hitting people at high speed. The bolts, nails, ball bearings inside wouldn't reach deadly velocities, although nails may reach speeds sufficient to penetrate flesh.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
That wouldn't work, you need the TNT equivalent for the blast effect, not for the amount of energy. You can burn TNT, it will release more energy than detonating it, but it won't create a pressure wave.

I can't blame people for distrusting the official version when the media have been talking about deadly shrapnel at supersonic speeds. CNN even showed a video of a pressure cooker bomb "similar to the ones used in Boston". There was nothing similar about it, they used high explosives in the test (you can see the detonation front traveling through the detcord in the slow motion).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD_Ufn1ROw0
If high explosives had been used, death toll would have been much higher, I believe twelve pressure cooker bombs in India killed 300 people.
The correct model for the Boston bombs would be a steam boiler explosion. In my opinion, the most likely cause for the deaths would be the lid or the main part of the pressure cooker hitting people at high speed. The bolts, nails, ball bearings inside wouldn't reach deadly velocities, although nails may reach speeds sufficient to penetrate flesh.

Thanks for that.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/35905/boston-marathon-bombs-what-were-they-made-of

External:- The combination of a pressure cooker and gunpowder pegs the bombing as relatively unsophisticated and inexpensive. Gunpowder explodes relatively slowly compared to military grade explosives such as C4 or TNT. The pressure cooker is utilized as a cheap way to increase the pressure in the container before it ruptures in an explosion. This increased pressure would result in a more powerful blast wave and the shrapnel flying at higher velocities. An excellent example of how pressure can increase the power of a gunpowder explosion can be seen in this video...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhQ4dE_RGnQ

My original point was not to break down the construction of the bombs as such, but to ask the question....how could the scenario suggested by some conspiracy theorists work? That is, where do you find "actors" (some of them amputees!) who are prepared to stand next to any explosive device as it detonates? If there is indeed, no such thing as a harmless bomb, it represents a fundamental hole in the theory. Another possible explanation would be that the area was cleared of the general public, the devices were detonated and the performers were brought in and the stage set (complete with blood and debris etc,) in the space of a few seconds.
 

Elfenlied

Member
My original point was not to break down the construction of the bombs as such, but to ask the question....how could the scenario suggested by some conspiracy theorists work? That is, where do you find "actors" (some of them amputees!) who are prepared to stand next to any explosive device as it detonates? If there is indeed, no such thing as a harmless bomb, it represents a fundamental hole in the theory. Another possible explanation would be that the area was cleared of the general public, the devices were detonated and the performers were brought in and the stage set (complete with blood and debris etc,) in the space of a few seconds.
I guess that in theory, you might be able to find such people, if you use a container that pulverizes so no dangerous fragments are released, cleverly designed hidden body armor, some sort of internal ear protection like wax maybe. Secret services all over the world have killed people, interrogated, with the help of medical personnel etc... very few of those have come forward to tell their story.
But apart from the "actors", you would have to have the cooperation of the first aid teams, the police, the hospitals, all the services that were present at previous editions. So either you have to recruit all of them, and it's highly unlikely that none of those will talk, or you have to replace them, something that wouldn't go unnoticed.
The surviving victims who have been identified in the press would have to change doctors, or their doctors have to be involved as well: if you show up in the media with a broken leg, your doctor will expect scars at your next visit. Same goes for all the friends, neighbors, family members, people from the swimming club, ...
You'll have to have lists of the hundreds that got hurt, a list that will exist for years and years, and at any time a reporter may decide to do an in-depth story about one of them. If they get into an accident, medical files have to be consistent. It's just a logistical nightmare of enormous proportions. Should anything go wrong, maybe they could use the FBI witness protection program as excuse to explain away discrepancies or hush it all up, but still...
And that doesn't include the risk of anything being exposed accidentally with all the cameras and mobile phones around. Or members of the public trying to help the wounded and noticing the kevlar.

Let's face it, such a scenario is fiction, if you want a false flag operation, you use a few people with real bombs. The idea of an all powerful government that lies and deceives, controls its citizens, kills people with immunity but spends enormous resources because it doesn't want to risk the lives of a few spectators at a marathon, that just doesn't make any sense.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
D Claim: Videos of people exhaling vape smoke through a mask, demonstrate masks as useless against a virus.. Coronavirus COVID-19 42
J Explaining the white smoke from the base of the South Tower 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 13
C Goldman Sachs' plume of smoke during WTC2's collapse [Probably diesel generators starting] 9/11 31
Marin B Smoke cloud with pointy wave formations Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
Mick West Explained: "Smoke Trails" On 9/11 World Trade Center Falling Debris [Dust/Powder] 9/11 10
Mick West Debunked: 'UFO Trailing Blue Smoke' over airport [Atlas V Rocket Launch] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
TEEJ Debunked: Lack of Smoke shows Michael Slager shooting of Walter Scott was Staged General Discussion 7
Jason Weird black ring appears in the sky [Pyrotechnic Smoke Ring] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Balance Aerobatic Smoke? Smoke Rings at Air Show Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 38
Mick West Debunked: Military Chemtrails On/Off [SU-30 Smoke Skywriting] Contrails and Chemtrails 26
Jay Reynolds Debunked: "Hygroscopic Smoke" Produces Persistent Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
Mick West Debunked: Black Smoke and orange flames as an indicator of an Oxygen Starved Low temp fire 9/11 4
Mick West Debunked: Amazing Footage of WWII Chemtrail Experiments Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Mick West Explosive Devices sent to Clintons, Brennan (at CNN), Soros Current Events 97
Cube Radio Donald Trump initially said he thought there were "bombs" on the planes on 9/11 9/11 44
Eddie Bombs and Israeli involvement in 911 9/11 50
Mick West Debunked: Weapons of Mass Destruction redefined as "just bombs" Boston Marathon Bombings 0
Related Articles




















Related Articles

Top