Legs blown off yet NO chair damage and salt pots, plastic cups still on table... Impossibility !!

A pressure cooker is build to contain pressure, now without being an expert on pressure cooker bombs, i would imagine that a blast inside a pressure cooker is trying to find it's weeakest point and sending the blast in that direction, maybe the blast was choosing the oposite direction of the chairs, and people shielding the chairs from debri and blastwave.

About the glass breaking, it might not have been a blastwave breaking it, it could be the sound from the blast.

Again i am not an expert, just throwing it out there.

Originally posted by captiva

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I really don’t get it OP, are you saying there wasn’t an explosion or are you just saying look at the nice chairs that didn’t get hit by the blast because that’s what I am hearing form your OP

If you read the second comment on the thread you will see what Im saying. Its always valuable to read the whole thread before commenting.

It's also valuable to actually use common sense before posting a thread...

Des

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by captiva

 

Then how about you humour me

Do you believe that at the Boston Marathon last week there were 2 explosions originating from bombs placed at the scene contained in backpacks?

A simple yes or no will suffice

I only ask so I can ascertain your views on this as it will make it easier to discuss.

Please dont play games with me, the evidence is in the photographs...you want to discuss or debate them go ahead I will debate...I wont repeat myself to you or play your game though.
respects for trying though.

Maybe just maybe the chairs and tables were inside the bldg. and were moved outside after the blast? Also could it be the investigators were thirsty and set their cups on the table?

I know it sounds crazy but I'm just using a little common sense which is lacking in this thread.

Originally posted by captiva
The 2nd blast outside "The Forum" during the Boston Marathon, 1 of 2 blasts resulting in 3 deaths and 14 leg amputations did not damage any of the foam chairs, the legs of the chairs, and there are still salt and pepper jars and a plastic cup on the table........ Surely an explosion that ripped through leg tissue would have ripped through cushion foam on chairs, I think so....

edit on 22-4-2013 by captiva because: (no reason given)

Explosions are not like you see in the movies. I've seen the effects of many, many IED's and such things are actually quite common. Blast effect, especially from a hommade bomb, do not go out uniformly in all directions. Especially when placed at ground level, many things , such as a close packed in crowd of people will attenuate the blast quite rapidly.

Consider that Hitler escaped unscathed from a blast that killed several people and devistated a room all because of a simple table leg next to the explosive.

reply to post by captiva


I am not playing games I am asking a very simple question that you have yet to answer

Yes or no
Do you believe that there were two explosions last week at the Boston Marathon that originated from bombs concealed in backpacks?

I am asking for clarity because this is the second thread you have created that seems to question the existence of these explosions.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by captiva

 

I am not playing games I am asking a very simple question that you have yet to answer

Yes or no
Do you believe that there were two explosions last week at the Boston Marathon that originated from bombs concealed in backpacks?

I am asking for clarity because this is the second thread you have created that seems to question the existence of these explosions.

Are you following me? dont you sleep? read the thread please...thanks.

Originally posted by captiva
reply to post by Hefficide

 

I say impossible. You cant state that the explosion was powerfull enough to dismember people then say it was not powerfull enough to rip a foam chair or remove items from a table. We agree to disagree.

Respectfully, you are wrong. Explosions are not like what you see in movies. An issue hand grenade actualy producess less smoke, no flame at all. It is not like the movies where a hand grenade blows up a house in a huge fireball that only comes from the gallons of gasoline that the pyrotechnics crew used. In shrapnel, velocity drops off quite quickly. Given the amount of people in between the blast and the tables, what you see is quite possible.

I saw an IED that went off at a cafe and there was total devistation and right in the middle of this devistation was a body, sitting in a chair, looking as comofrable as it could with a full plate of food in front of it. Everything else was pretty much gone but he, except for the fatal head wound, looked unscathed. Improvised explosive devices are very irregular things.

reply to post by captiva

Flag and ten stars for at least pointing out something new, and it's a good observation. I betcha a little of whatever money you use in your country that if we inspected the chairs and tables we'd find some evidence of the blast. But from a distance they do look pristine, and the stuff on the table wasn't knocked off by either the blast or the people moving around afterwards. So yes, a good observation, although it probably means nothing about the case except an interesting "look at this!".

reply to post by captiva


It’s very interesting that you are continuing to avoid my question

This leads me to suspect that actually you don’t believe that there were any bombs and know that such claims would be ridiculed and can’t be defended and as such you are avoiding my attempts to clarify your position.

Which is unfortunate because it could turn out to be a interesting conversation.

Originally posted by captiva

Originally posted by Hawking
Apparently you're not real familiar with shrapnel

Is shrapnel able to choose what it hits? no... your argument is illogical.

You want to talk logic? Okay

The bag was on the ground, hence the massive damage to peoples lower extremities and loss of legs. The man who lost both legs below the knees was perhaps the closest to the device.

The cups you can see on the table are above the blast radius, and any shrapnel would be embedded underneath the table. Likewise with the chairs, most of those probably have shrapnel embedded in them, but the people who were sat in them would have taken the majority of that shrapnel.

You are not using logic at all, but that's because you want this to be a false flag.

reply to post by captiva


With respect, I'm sure these bizarre inconsistencies do happen in bomb blasts, depending on the direction / spread of the blast / shock wave. I don't think there is anything odd about this particular occasion.

But then I would not claim to be an explosives expert, it is just my humble opinion, nothing more.

If the bomb was meant to cause maximum death and desolation (which i suppose is what its meant to do under the circumstances that it was made for an act of terror) that still leaves a question open for me.

Apparantly, according to the FBI, the bomb was too sophisticated for the brothers too make by themselves, and by this, they deduced that there had to be more people involved.

If the people involved, those who made the explosive artifact, were actually skilled in what they were doing, then surely they would have known that the type of explosive (reloading powder, right?) they used was of of little power compared to semtex, C4 or dynamite, hence the need to use the pressure cooker to maximise it's effects.

If the above is true, then why did they leave the bombs outside in the street...

Why not -

Leave the bomb/s inside forum, let the blast bounce of the walls kill everyone inside and use the glass and metal from inside the bar as added shrapnel to triple the effect on those only meters away outside and kill and maim even more people.

After all thats what bombs are for...right!!

Leaving the bomb outside, knowing its scant explosive power would be even less deadly in a wide open space,makes no sense to me..

For me leaving the artifact outside served only two purposes -
1 - to be seen, to be grusome and loud, filled with fire and smoke and to be taped and photographed by the most people possible, making this a tremendously televised event for the worlds press to show the threat of terrorism still exists in the USA, meanwhile killing the minimum number of people possible, yet still leaving enough victims and wounded to enrage a terror filled nation.

2 - Leaving the bomb outside MAXIMISED the chances of cameras, security videos and witnesses to the act.
It almost guaranteed that the face of the two kids would be on camera, thus making the hunt quicker.

Anyone remember that when J.D. Tippet got shot, almost automatically a description fitting exactly that of Oswald was used as a BOLO by the Dallas P.D.
Even though the 3 o 4 witness to the act gave different stories.

This was the same thing..the suspects were already prepared.

Originally posted by billy565
Maybe just maybe the chairs and tables were inside the bldg. and were moved outside after the blast? Also could it be the investigators were thirsty and set their cups on the table?

I know it sounds crazy but I'm just using a little common sense which is lacking in this thread.

edit on 22-4-2013 by billy565 because: (no reason given)

No, there were chairs outside in that enclosed seating area during the explosion.

But there were also signs attached to the fences around those chairs, and there were also people sitting in those chairs. The blast radius issuing shrapnel was close to the ground, so it's reasonable to say that the majority of materials expelled from the device hit people in the legs and lower body. There were also a lot of people around in that area who would have taken the most of the impact.

There are stories from some who were knocked over by the force of people being blown into them, but didn't have a scratch on them, this is because all the shrapnel hit the person in front, it didn't go through three people to get to someone else.

There is shrapnel in those chairs, and embedded in the bottoms of those tables, I can pretty much guarantee that this would be the case. Just as we know that people sat there were also injured.

i've found a clue that this may be a set up but unable to create a new thread so writing this just to let you know

I can be pretty clear I think.

From the pics you present I can honestly not say wether the chairs are made of foam or not. As theyare used in a public place they will probably be stronger then the average IKEA stuff. i coan nkt say if the legs of the chairs are from wood or not.

The plastic cups can easily be offered to the people hurt as people tend to offer something to drink after a shocking moment, mostly water. So what was in those cups I can't tell.

The salt and pepper, well people do strange things so maybe they are just put back by a bystander, force of habbit when one does not know to do in a chaotic situation, ordering or cleanng is a psycholical way of dealing with chaos. So if you would have my gf there I would know she would have put them there lol just a force of habbit. Remember that guy on 9/11 with an all bloody back just chilling and smoking a cigarette. in a shock people just do wjat they normally would do.


Personally well pressurecookers ade not designed to explode spherical. If you watch the vid of the explosion it seems that the first force just came a fraction of a second through the fences before you see the cloud in the back so that would give you a sense of what direction the force was directed.

reply to post by captiva


I'm sure that with a thourogh investigation of the chairs there will be some metals And Such lodged into them, and if the chairs were to be flesh I'm sure there would have been a amputation or graft of some sort.

Your argument is moot and inconclusive. Mythbusters would decline you for lack of.....

I have been drunk and knocked over many tables, it was amazing and IMPOSSIBLE as you say that 2 out of 15 drinks that landing were still full with ice and liquid untouched standing upright...
Something about that isn't right, I'll be investigating that and post back with results.

So what are you suggesting took off limbs and killed people? If not a bomb that went off then what happened to them? Are you suggesting the whole thing was CGI on TV or that the injured were just paid actors and good makeup artists?

Originally posted by andy1972
If the bomb was meant to cause maximum death and desolation (which i suppose is what its meant to do under the circumstances that it was made for an act of terror) that still leaves a question open for me.

Apparantly, according to the FBI, the bomb was too sophisticated for the brothers too make by themselves, and by this, they deduced that there had to be more people involved.

If the people involved, those who made the explosive artifact, were actually skilled in what they were doing, then surely they would have known that the type of explosive (reloading powder, right?) they used was of of little power compared to semtex, C4 or dynamite, hence the need to use the pressure cooker to maximise it's effects.

If the above is true, then why did they leave the bombs outside in the street...

Why not -

Leave the bomb/s inside forum, let the blast bounce of the walls kill everyone inside and use the glass and metal from inside the bar as added shrapnel to triple the effect on those only meters away outside and kill and maim even more people.

After all thats what bombs are for...right!!

Leaving the bomb outside, knowing its scant explosive power would be even less deadly in a wide open space,makes no sense to me..

For me leaving the artifact outside served only two purposes -
1 - to be seen, to be grusome and loud, filled with fire and smoke and to be taped and photographed by the most people possible, making this a tremendously televised event for the worlds press to show the threat of terrorism still exists in the USA, meanwhile killing the minimum number of people possible, yet still leaving enough victims and wounded to enrage a terror filled nation.

2 - Leaving the bomb outside MAXIMISED the chances of cameras, security videos and witnesses to the act.
It almost guaranteed that the face of the two kids would be on camera, thus making the hunt quicker.

Anyone remember that when J.D. Tippet got shot, almost automatically a description fitting exactly that of Oswald was used as a BOLO by the Dallas P.D.
Even though the 3 o 4 witness to the act gave different stories.

This was the same thing..the suspects were already prepared.

edit on 22-4-2013 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

Actually, with a shrapnel bomb, you want to have some space for the maximum effect. If there are too many objects clustered around the bomb, the shrapnel is absorbed rapidly and there is less damage overall. Ideally, he would have wanted 3-6 feet of open space around the bomb for maximum spread, but that was, given the situation, not practical.

Originally posted by billy565
Maybe just maybe the chairs and tables were inside the bldg. and were moved outside after the blast? Also could it be the investigators were thirsty and set their cups on the table?

I know it sounds crazy but I'm just using a little common sense which is lacking in this thread.

edit on 22-4-2013 by billy565 because: (no reason given)

There seems to be a severe lack of common sense in all of these marathon bombing threads imo.