Big Bang in Beruit

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I didn't ask why you called me illiterate (which is a charge that cannot have any basis in fact), I asked why you called me a liar.  What I said that prompted that childish reaction from you was

Because military weapons do more damage than that, and we saw what these weapons can do in 1945.
Yet again we saw what they can do in 1990 (usage of depleted uranium ammo by the U.S).
Armies around the globe keep their weapon systems a secret; so FOABs and MOABs are just for show; they have worse and humanity did see that worse before.
You are a liar because you keep your head in the sand and repeat what armies around the globe tell you.

This is an absolutely factual statement. Read the phrase 'single conventional military bomb'.  Read it over and over until it sinks in to that thick fucking skull of yours.  Better still, write it down on a slip of paper, and take it round to friends and ask them what it means.

-A warehouse full of ammonium nitrate isn't a 'single conventional military bomb'.

-A warehouse full of ammunition isn't a 'single conventional military bomb'.

-A warehouse full of fireworks, C4, fuel oil, detonators, primer cord, gunpowder, mercury fulminate and explosive dildoes isn't a 'single conventional military bomb'.

The largest 'single conventional military bomb' in existence is the Russian FOAB. Although experts dispute the claimed yield for this 'Father Of All Bombs' the Russians claim it is equivalent to 44 000 pounds of TNT. The Beirut explosion is estimated to have been a 1.2KT explosion.  That's the equivalent of more than 50 FOABs.

Please point out how ANY of that is a lie. (Alternately, you could simply apologize and we'll be done with this)

Boru

I love the word "conventional" that makes any person pointing to the truth -documented by historical evidence- a conspiracy theorist.
Keep your head in the sand; I say.

I never called you a conspiracy theorist, and I don't think you are one.

In military terms, 'conventional' is used to denote common military practices, generally to distinguish them from nuclear or guerilla warfare.  For the purposes of this thread 'conventional military bomb' means 'non-nuclear bomb'.

So, when I said that 'There’s not a single conventional military bomb in existence that could do what happened in Beirut', I was referring to non-nuclear weapons produced or maintained by military forces. This was to counter your assertion that a single bomb, similar to a MOAB, did what was done in Beirut.  That's simply not possible. Even if the explosion was triggered deliberately (and that's still a very real possibility), it was an unconventional bomb, not a conventional one.

You are a liar because you keep your head in the sand and repeat what armies around the globe tell you.

If true (and I've already told you that it isn't), this would make me ignorant, not a liar.

I hope this clears it up for you, and I'm still waiting for you to apologize.

Boru