Sorry, didn't know that was aimed at me.
I've never heard the term "tertiary blast waves" before. His quoted experts also aren't describing a wave of any kind. There are
secondary blast waves, i.e., reflections of the shockwave off of solid surfaces, which can indeed be significant in large explosions. But there's no accounting for how many times these waves reflect (else we'd also have "quartary blast waves," "quintary blast waves," etc.). It's only a question of whether you get the wave straight from the point of origin, or if it's reflected.
What the experts are describing is bulk fluid motion following the explosion, not waves at all. For example, if you set off a large explosion surrounded by baffles, and then you stand in the flame trench, you will feel what is basically a gust of wind. This is caused by the solid :: gas conversion generating a higher
static pressure, which is then equalized at sonic speed by gas motion, also known as wind. There is also convection caused by heating, which creates additional sonic or subsonic fluid motion (more wind).
If you carefully set up this kind of situation, it is quite plausible for one to be physically blown around without being otherwise injured -- winds of several hundred miles per hour correspond to a dynamic pressure of only a couple of PSI, which is eminently survivable. But again, this is not a wave. The difference between waves and fluid motion is like the difference between causing pressure pulses in a stretched out
Slinky versus actually carrying that Slinky from one place to another.
In complicated and large explosives we can see additional shockwave tricks, like the
Munroe Effect in shaped charges, and the "
precursor" effect in
nuclear weapons exploded at optimal altitude. Both of these are essentially focusing and constructive interference of shockwaves. Neither is at all relevant to the OP, however. I only mention them out of general interest.
So, in short, the wind could be considered a tertiary
effect of an explosive, but there is no well-defined term "tertiary blast wave." Our OP is mixing unfamiliar words.
At least not a borderline stupid comment, like from some previous posters, that ignores what was said in the quote and dishonestly and shamelesly tries to imply that the expert didnt mean explosvies powerful enough to destroy steel columns, when the expert made it very clear that he meant quote: "very high explosive loads" and specifically answered a questions about "demolition charges".... No wonder this forum has such a bad name... I dont even take any pleasure in debunking all these clueless JREF members, i think i might give them health problems in doing so...
I got the term "tertiary blast wave" from reading a bunch of medical journals, as i will show below, so the term was stuck in my head. I doubt that there are two different tertiary blast effects, so "blast wind" may be the only correct term. I can find articles when i look now that only mentions "tertiary blast wind" so it seems that there exist some confusion about the term, i will ask an expert about it.
"Tertiary blast injury: Results from victim being propelled against structure
by the blast wave or blast winds."
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...9K-gJW&sig=AHIEtbT0wEHgOaA6Q9F4FrLz4jGsrMcUDg
"
Tertiary Blast wave propels individuals onto surfaces/objects or objects onto individuals, causing whole body translocation."
http://www.mendeley.com/research/in...hysics-pathology-and-required-research-focus/
"
The tertiary blast wave threw the soldier from his vehicle into the air"
http://www.bmctoday.net/retinatoday/2009/04/article.asp?f=0409_12.php
"Traumatic amputations are seldom seen in blast victims. An additive of primary blast wave, secondary and
tertiary blast wave has been proposed"
www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-...mber-1/blast-injury-brief-review-article.html
R.Mackey wrote: The major problem with the wall-o'-text strawman argument is that the only signs of an explosion being considered here are a few people being blown a few feet.
Again!,
I gave alot of testimones, in which the most logical explanation of the blast effects described, is high energy explosvies.
The total destruction of the WTC 7 lobby, cannot be explained by any jet fuel explosion or falling debris, no reasonable person would asume that debis destroyed the lobby. The video i posted shows alot of dust inside the lobby after one of the towers collapsed, no damage was done to the lobby by this dust cloud, besides some windows that broke. The police that told Jennings to run, mention reports of more explosions, what explosions was he talking about?, this was after both towers had collapsed, and he was worried about explosions and wanted him to run from thebuilding, obviously, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn, is that the policeman got reports of the explosions that caused the damage in the lobby and killed the fire/policemen inside the lobby that Jennings stepped on, and was concerned that more explosions were to be expected. The witness that saw a shockwave ripping through WTC 7, busting out the windows, and a second later the bottom floor caved out and then the building followed after that, is another great example of a witness to what could be high energy explosives.
I showed you quotes, where the explosions made windows explode on a nearby street corner. How there was a series of 15 explosions inside the building, and how the street was shaking before the collapse. People being banged around and picked up in the air at different times, flashes all around the building along with the explosions etc. You must accept, that you cant debunk any of these witnesses, i would not use any of these quotes if you could, these are all witnesses to what could be high energy explosvies...
Arguing that the steel was inspected carefully, is like arguing that the Nazis didnt disslike the jews, its taking it to the history denial level. Inspecting a couple of hundred pieces of steel is not inspecting anyting. Thousands of photos of irrelevant pices of steel means nothing, who cares about some photos, nobody inspected the steal, reporters on the site reported on how there was an ongoing operation to destroy all the steel before any inspection, these are the true facts, and this is why as i have shown before, so many investigators, scientists and engineers were mad, because it meant that they would haft to play with paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals instead of real data... All the very critical pieces of steel that could explain the collapse was immediately destroyed. The mafia was hired to help the clean up, but hey, when corrupt officials hires the mafia to remove the evidence, there is nothing to worry about!... The military demolition units with possibly ties to the CIA, that illegally were in the U.S. and New york with foreknowledge of the attacks, as i showed before, dont seem to bother you either.
Everybody in europe knows who runs your secret COG government, why do you deny the state-sponsored terror network that exist in your country?. You seem to like that your government has been in martial law ever since 911, the dictatorial powers that was put into place after the attack, is to keep you safe?, it was not a coup by the secret government to seize more power?, when did their agenda of world dominance change?, and why do we see these same war elites continuing working with Al-qaida after 911 and pushing their world order agenda. In many countries today, you look like a cook if you talk about CIA being an intelligence agency working for the president and gathering information. This is 2012, not the 60s when you could make excuses for the mafia....
Redtail: Liberty, if you're still around, I'd really like to know why if you are asking questions of explosive experts & you believe that explosives brought down the towers, why you wouldn't ask them their expert opinion if explosives brought down the towers or not.
I dont care that much about anybodys opinion, not many people have studied 911, and most experts like this are simple human beings like everyone else that has bad judgment and lack any real critical thinking, we live in a very damaged society controlled mostly by oligarchs. 911 is a big subject and i only respect the opinion of somebody who have truly researched it. I did ask a couple of questions regarding some basement explosions on 911, nothing else. Why do you think someones opinion matters that much?. You can find out the only right answer by yourself, then if 20 explosvies experts dont agree with you, then you know how they are all wrong. Wouldn't it be nice being able to use logical thinking and not haft to rely on "experts"?. On 911, we see blast effects, that
CAN be explained by very high explosives loads, and that most likely in my opinion are explained with high energy explosvies. This is a fact, we dont need to ask any experts.
(my grandson made me add this)
(or at least I did 
)