View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

The Boston Bombings Discussion

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby ProfWag » 23 Jul 2013, 06:01

First, please allow me to say that it sickens me to my core that I have to discuss this topic. The thought that anyone thinks that this was not as a result of the Tsarnaev Brothers planting pressure cookers disgusts me as much as anyone who believes that it wasn't Al Quaeda who flew planes into those buildings. However, as it has been so eloquently pointed out to me, I need to keep an open mind and take a serious look at the evidence, ask the questions, and then make a decision. So, I'll do it with as much of an open mind as I possibly can.

This subject was started from another topic that began to discuss the Bombings so I believe it deserves its own place. One of the posts ended with Misha asking several questions. It is from the below comment that I'll begin to look at the evidence:

ProfWag,

If you had read Dave's Boston Bombing thread you will see he used the exact CNN clip which you provided. Yes, Dave addresses the damage to buildings. We have been told by the authorities this was a pressure cooker loaded with nails and ball bearings, correct? Now show me the pitted buildings, snow fence and advertising tarp of such damage. As the CNN clip rightly points out that these two bombs at Boston were NON-DIRECTIONAL devices. That means the shrapnel goes everywhere. Again, show me the damage to structures other than the victims (Glass doesn't count). In fact, why was the glass blown OUT from the building when the device was exploded by or near the street? Take a look at the pictures, please. Why didn't others in the vicinity not hit by projectiles moving 2000 feet per second? Furthermore, since when do bombs only take of Legs? What about arms or hands? Since when do bombs not blow people's genitalia off? Why do all the victims have their LEG pants shredded and not their pants (groin area) shredded and missing? Why didn't the attending physicians not have squirting blood all over them? These are just questions.....
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby ProfWag » 23 Jul 2013, 06:05

I should also point towards the reference Misha posted that kind of began this discussion: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby ProfWag » 23 Jul 2013, 06:20

Misha wrote:ProfWag,

If you had read Dave's Boston Bombing thread you will see he used the exact CNN clip which you provided. Yes, Dave addresses the damage to buildings. We have been told by the authorities this was a pressure cooker loaded with nails and ball bearings, correct? Now show me the pitted buildings, snow fence and advertising tarp of such damage. As the CNN clip rightly points out that these two bombs at Boston were NON-DIRECTIONAL devices. That means the shrapnel goes everywhere. Again, show me the damage to structures other than the victims (Glass doesn't count). In fact, why was the glass blown OUT from the building when the device was exploded by or near the street? Take a look at the pictures, please. Why didn't others in the vicinity not hit by projectiles moving 2000 feet per second? Furthermore, since when do bombs only take of Legs? What about arms or hands? Since when do bombs not blow people's genitalia off? Why do all the victims have their LEG pants shredded and not their pants (groin area) shredded and missing? Why didn't the attending physicians not have squirting blood all over them? These are just questions.....

As is what is MY PERCEPTION of being typical of a conspiracy theorist, a lot of questions are thrown out at one time, almost terrifying anyone who attempts to read it. Since it appears to be a daunting task, I would seriously prefer to discuss one item at at time. Do you think this can be done? We'll see.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby ProfWag » 23 Jul 2013, 06:44

Question #1 from Misha that I will attempt to answer: "show me the damage to structures other than the victims (Glass doesn't count)."
First, I'm not sure why glass doesn't count, but okay, I'll go with it. I'm afraid I have a question for you before I attempt this answer. What do you think would happen to a concrete, brick, and steel building from a pressure cooker filled with nails and BBs? And, if I may ask another question, what experiment did Dave do to determine the extend of damage that should be expected from this type of bomb and building. Again, let's try to keep the questions and answers on track, even if that means we won't finish this tonight, tomorrow, or even a week from now.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby ProfWag » 23 Jul 2013, 07:34

Misha wrote: In fact, why was the glass blown OUT from the building when the device was exploded by or near the street? Take a look at the pictures, please.

Can I ask another question in response to your question? Probably not fair, but I'm going to anyway. What do YOU think should have happened to the glass? I have looked at the pictures. I see glass on the inside as well as the outside. I know that in an explosion such as this one, the explosion will create a vacuum causing the glass to pull towards the explosion. Of course, it also depends on the type of glass, wouldn't you think MIsha? Have a look at the pictures please. Is it a safety glass? It appears to me that the glass actually goes almost straight down on both sides which would be an obvious result of pressurized safety glass. The pictures do show glass on the inside as well. But what do I know about glass? Nothing except it hurts like hell to get cut by it. So, getting back to the question, how should the glass in those buildings have reacted, knowing the kind of glass that it was (of course, I kind of doubt that neither you nor Dave actually know what kind of glass it was.)

Also, could you pick just one of your questions that I can look at next? I'm not sure which ones you think might be the most important. Thanks.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby Misha » 23 Jul 2013, 14:11

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote: In fact, why was the glass blown OUT from the building when the device was exploded by or near the street? Take a look at the pictures, please.

Can I ask another question in response to your question? Probably not fair, but I'm going to anyway. What do YOU think should have happened to the glass? I have looked at the pictures. I see glass on the inside as well as the outside. I know that in an explosion such as this one, the explosion will create a vacuum causing the glass to pull towards the explosion. Of course, it also depends on the type of glass, wouldn't you think MIsha? Have a look at the pictures please. Is it a safety glass? It appears to me that the glass actually goes almost straight down on both sides which would be an obvious result of pressurized safety glass. The pictures do show glass on the inside as well. But what do I know about glass? Nothing except it hurts like hell to get cut by it. So, getting back to the question, how should the glass in those buildings have reacted, knowing the kind of glass that it was (of course, I kind of doubt that neither you nor Dave actually know what kind of glass it was.)

Also, could you pick just one of your questions that I can look at next? I'm not sure which ones you think might be the most important. Thanks.


ProfWag, we only have to look at General Benton Partin's analysis on the Oklahoma Bombing to understand pressure waves. This is why there was rubble found clear across the street. It was not blown in by the Ryder truck. It was blown out. However, I want to be fair on the glass issue. Let me try and find someone at the New York Bomb squad who might be able to answer this question.

Why did you not address the other anomalies which I find more interesting? I'll put up my post again:


If you had read Dave's Boston Bombing thread you will see he used the exact CNN clip which you provided. Yes, Dave addresses the damage to buildings. We have been told by the authorities this was a pressure cooker loaded with nails and ball bearings, correct? Now show me the pitted buildings, snow fence and advertising tarp of such damage. As the CNN clip rightly points out that these two bombs at Boston were NON-DIRECTIONAL devices. That means the shrapnel goes everywhere. Again, show me the damage to structures other than the victims (Glass doesn't count). In fact, why was the glass blown OUT from the building when the device was exploded by or near the street? Take a look at the pictures, please. Why didn't others in the vicinity not get hit by projectiles moving 2000 feet per second? Furthermore, since when do bombs only take of Legs? What about arms or hands? Since when do bombs not blow people's genitalia off? Why do all the victims have their LEG pants shredded and not their pants (groin area) shredded and missing? Why didn't the attending physicians not have squirting blood all over them? These are just questions.....


Again, notwithstanding the glass issue can you please comment. Thanks for moving the Boston Bombing material over to its proper thread.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby really? » 23 Jul 2013, 19:19

I've not much to say on this yet except two comments. Firstly. I hope this new CT can be exposed for the silliness that it is so it can be stopped on the web. Secondly. Why, when people prone to ct's cite forensic anomalies always conclude there's more to the story then what happened?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby ProfWag » 23 Jul 2013, 19:37

Misha wrote:Why did you not address the other anomalies which I find more interesting? I'll put up my post again:

Oh gee, Misha, I don't know. Could it be that I have a job, a wife, a home, and other interests that I need to take care of other than spend every free minute I have researching topics for this forum?
Misha wrote:If you had read Dave's Boston Bombing thread you will see he used the exact CNN clip which you provided. Yes, Dave addresses the damage to buildings. We have been told by the authorities this was a pressure cooker loaded with nails and ball bearings, correct? Now show me the pitted buildings, snow fence and advertising tarp of such damage. As the CNN clip rightly points out that these two bombs at Boston were NON-DIRECTIONAL devices. That means the shrapnel goes everywhere. Again, show me the damage to structures other than the victims (Glass doesn't count). In fact, why was the glass blown OUT from the building when the device was exploded by or near the street? Take a look at the pictures, please. Why didn't others in the vicinity not get hit by projectiles moving 2000 feet per second? Furthermore, since when do bombs only take of Legs? What about arms or hands? Since when do bombs not blow people's genitalia off? Why do all the victims have their LEG pants shredded and not their pants (groin area) shredded and missing? Why didn't the attending physicians not have squirting blood all over them? These are just questions..... [/i]

Again, notwithstanding the glass issue can you please comment. Thanks for moving the Boston Bombing material over to its proper thread.

Again, as Arouet and I have pointed out countless times before, to try to tackle more than one question at a time is unproductive. It's a ploy by CTers to bombard one with questions and statements and then when we miss one, it's that particular issue that we get criticized for not responding to. As best I could count, you asked at least 8 questions. You stated why I didn't address the other anomalies that you found more interesting. Now just how the hell am I supposed to know what you found more interesting? I'm not psychic! :o Are you more curious as to why genitalia weren't blown off, squirting blood, buildings, glass, or just what?
As I've asked before, pick ONE and let's discuss. Then, we'll pick another.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby Misha » 23 Jul 2013, 23:33

This is a projection of the worst magnitude by you. I did not criticize you. I merely asked a question of why you did not address them? Also, you don't have to be psychic but you also do not have to be disingenuous either. ProfWag, you did not even acknowledge the rest of the points. You cherry picked above all others because it was the safest to discredit in your eyes. Moreover, you ask to hit points when you are not willing to read Dave's thesis en toto!

Frankly, your last post now tells me what you are about. I am disappointed and have lost what respect was left for you. Think I'll take a break from this site. I do not want to engage in any vitriolic language. Always trying to be a gentleman.....
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby ProfWag » 24 Jul 2013, 06:12

Misha wrote:This is a projection of the worst magnitude by you. I did not criticize you. I merely asked a question of why you did not address them? Also, you don't have to be psychic but you also do not have to be disingenuous either. ProfWag, you did not even acknowledge the rest of the points. You cherry picked above all others because it was the safest to discredit in your eyes. Moreover, you ask to hit points when you are not willing to read Dave's thesis en toto!

Frankly, your last post now tells me what you are about. I am disappointed and have lost what respect was left for you. Think I'll take a break from this site. I do not want to engage in any vitriolic language. Always trying to be a gentleman.....

I sincerely apologize if I came across as too harsh. I readily admitted at the beginning of this thread that the thought of having to discuss this subject as being something other than what it was sickens me to no end.
I'll try to start over. To answer one of your questions, I didn't address them because I didn't have the time. Now, which one question or point would you like me to address first? (assuming you accept my apology and still want to discuss.)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby Misha » 24 Jul 2013, 15:28

Fair enough, ProfWag. I don't harbor any ill will and know your intentions are honorable at the end of the day. However, I would like to take a break from the threads for awhile.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby ProfWag » 24 Jul 2013, 19:02

Misha wrote:Fair enough, ProfWag. I don't harbor any ill will and know your intentions are honorable at the end of the day. However, I would like to take a break from the threads for awhile.

Thanks. And yes, we all need a break from the rigors of this particular forum from time to time.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby really? » 24 Jul 2013, 19:21

So what is the first question to be examined?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby NinjaPuppy » 25 Jul 2013, 08:07

really? wrote:So what is the first question to be examined?

How do you skeptics think? ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The Boston Bombings Discussion

Postby really? » 25 Jul 2013, 09:59

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:So what is the first question to be examined?

How do you skeptics think? ;)

As best we can, we try not to look at things that affirm what our preconceived notions might be. We make as few assumptions as possible when evaluating something. And most of all try strive not to delude ourselves into thinking the world is as we wish it to be.
Last edited by really? on 25 Jul 2013, 22:01, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests