Boston Bomb Scene: Former NYPD Bomb Squad Detective Explaining the 1st Explosion?

Boston Bomb Scene: Former NYPD Bomb Squad Detective Explaining the 1st Explosion?


Former NYPD bomb squad Det. Kevin Barry says the bombs in Boston “didn’t function fully.” he arrives at this conclusion based on what he calls "white powder" rather than broken glass in front of LensCrafters. I wonder what it is that allows his "professional expertise" to come to have arrived at such a strange conclusion as that?

Lets try to figure out what's going on in this damn "dis-info" video wherein a former NYPD bomb squad detective is either lying through his a** - he's stupid - he's intentionally planting dis-info intended to confuse and befuddle the American public - he doesn't know what he's talking about - he's half right and half wrong, but to what end? Either he knows about bombs and their after effects or he doesn't.

For example the preposterous claim he makes about the 'blue bag' at the center of the scene - that blue bag is obviously part of the bomb squad members (in blue on left) equipment. Its a scientific investigation team bag.

The 'white powder' he's talking about looks to be broken (tempered) glass piled up at the front of the window.
Notice too that the window on the left has a pane that survived the blast. The window on the right had both panes blown out. This is assuming that they were "doubled glass" windows - why? I don't know.

EDIT: "It might just be that both panes are out on the right side because that's where all the actors made their entrance into the bomb scene. As for myself - I am quite sure of it, but I will leave it for others to decide as well. I have had this feeling from the very beginning, and as I reviewed my own post here I became convinced of it."

The bomb "expert" is also trying to tell us that the 'white stuff' on the ground isn't broken glass but unexploded material? And that the small 'thermal burn' on the ground - that was hot enough to burn everyone in the immediate vicinity, and instantly cauterize both legs of a 'victim,' but not hot enough to burn the paper right next to it.

Question: Is it ABC's job here is to dis-inform the public just in case people such as ourselves might inquire and actually get our facts straight. Or is ABC an innocent party to the bomb squad detectives nonsense?

WIKI Definition:

A blast wave in fluid dynamics is the pressure and flow resulting from the deposition of a large amount of energy in a small very localized volume. The flow field can be approximated as a lead shock wave, followed by a 'self-similar' subsonic flow field. In simpler terms, a blast wave is an area of pressure expanding supersonically outward from an explosive core. It has a leading shock front of compressed gases. The blast wave is followed by a blast wind of negative pressure, which sucks items back in towards the center. The blast wave is harmful especially when one is very close to the center or at a location of constructive interference. High explosives, which detonate, generate blast waves.

With all respect here, because I'm interested if you have solid information to add, I have to ask something.

The guy explaining this in the video is a former NYPD professional/officer/bomb squad detective. He's done it for a living and where lives (his own among them) depended on being right, by visual assessment, every single time. After all, one oops in his line of work is the last oops a person ever has.

What qualifications do you carry in saying he's wrong and the evidence as we're seeing in the imagery shows something other than he says it does? I don't know either way, and that's why I'm asking if you have background to really counter it. It makes an interesting argument if you do.

I don't know, but what he says sounds like bunk to me too. That "white substance" looks to be shattered tempered glass from the windows at ground level and from above.

My opinion is the "burn mark" at the left of the pic is from a smoke device that was sitting on the pavement, that caused the big cloud of smoke we saw occur. JMO of course

Originally posted by Bilk22
I don't know, but what he says sounds like bunk to me too. That "white substance" looks to be shattered tempered glass from the windows at ground level and from above.

My opinion is the "burn mark" at the left of the pic is from a smoke device that was sitting on the pavement, that caused the big cloud of smoke we saw occur. JMO of course

I didn't mention it in my OP but I have come to the same conclusion regarding the burn mark (on the right) - it looks to be from a "smudge pot" - I was in the military and am quite familiar with such devices.

I conclude through my experience in the military and in civilian life as a dynamite crew chief for a major construction company, and through the ordinary application of common sense that the former NYPD bomb squad Det. Kevin Barry is a consummate liar and a fraud. He's a dis-information specialist brought in to create chaos and confusion.

ABC news interviewed former NYPD bomb squad Det. Kevin Barry on April 16th, and he mentioned that there was a "thermal burn mark" near Lenscrafters. (1:50 in the video)

This is pure propaganda bunk - same as the blue scientific bag having been "sucked into the hole" of the bomb blast. Absolutely preposterous!! I call him out as a BS specialist.

Oh.. Just to add something for value of the analysis....

Boston Bombing Suspects Shootout w/ pressure cooker bomb

That photo set came from a resident who found themselves in a second floor above the two in the shootout with cops. During that, they detonated another pressure cooker bomb and the marks in the street are much clearer without the debris from the marathon site, for what it leaves behind and the mess it makes from a sloppy build.

Anyway, it's a set I still don't see posted around much and yet, shows some of the best imagery of the overall series of events. In terms of what the bombs did or didn't do, it's definitely valuable, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


As the OP I have a right to ask you to please stay on topic - lest we have the impression that you are trying to de-rail the thread. Thank you.

reply to post by CasaVigilante

How am I not being on topic? You're saying a retired NYPD Bomb tech is wrong and/or fabricating to the public?

As it happens, there are actual material science people and a wide variety of cops as members on ATS. I wasn't, as it happens, asking in any rhetorical way. I really was curious if you were coming from a position of having professional credentials to challenge another professional on that level of things. It's usually off in the science forums for seeing the other members..but they're definitely around.

By the way, we don't own our threads like personal property. We all send them off to rise or fall once hitting submit as the author.

In terms of my imagery shared? Your OP's premise is based, in part, on the marks left on the pavement. I brought a much clearer image of one of their bombs being detonated with the aftermath as clear as anyone could ask to see. (Self snip last sentence...)

reply to post by CasaVigilante


The photos here seem to tell the whole story.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by CasaVigilante

 

The photos here seem to tell the whole story. www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Definitely ON TOPIC - and thank you for reminding me of that - I had seen it a long time ago and forgot about it.........

"Contractors" at Boston Marathon Stood Near Bomb [scene] and Left Before Detonation
by Tony Cartalucci
April 19, 2013
from LandDestroyer Website

Photos Seen across street after blasts talking with FBI bomb squad.
Who were they?
What were they and the FBI doing?
Most images were taken from Flickr user HahaTango,
the entire collection of 150 images from the Boston Marathon
can be found here.

The idea of actors used is unbelievable, especially as the incident never actually took place, but was in fact all created through image fakery... Many people are pushing the staged/actors option because this is slowly being proved bit by bit to be no more than extreme use of faked imageary...not just some of it....but all of it... It must be a nightmare realising that people are wakening up....

I agree that the 'white substance' definitely looks like shattered tempered glass.

If it was 'unexploded material', what material might that be? If it was an explosive material, would the firework powder still be needed to detonate the bomb?

Just wondering...