It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Bones: Forensic evidence indicating the use of explosives on September 11th, 2001.

page: 3
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: neutronflux

Steel fragments and bone fragments are different weights and densities and therefore would not likely wind up landing in the same place.


Not necessarily. If the argument was the detonation of explosives fragmented bones, then the resultant blast should have ejected shrapnel. Shrapnel created by demolitions should be found with the body fragments the blast created. Especially if shrapnel was embedded in bone.




posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
And don't forget demolition explosives strong enough to create and eject bone fragments would have been recorded on video and be audible.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Only if shrapnel was embedded in bone, you mean?

Floridagoat is right. The different weights and densities of materials, dictate how far they fly when propelled. Bone and metal have different weight per cubic inch, different densities too, so they would not normally find themselves in the same layer of the debris field.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Could they have been smashed to pieces and blown out the windows as the floors pancaked?

The weight and air pressure would be astronomical.


πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

No, but thats hillarious.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Could they have been smashed to pieces and blown out the windows as the floors pancaked?

The weight and air pressure would be astronomical.


πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

No, but thats hillarious.


Why is that hilarious? Do you think that people died for your amusement?



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Could they have been smashed to pieces and blown out the windows as the floors pancaked?

The weight and air pressure would be astronomical.
Without commenting on anything else, it's very doubtful that the air pressure would be sufficient to virtually vaporize people, or turn them into little tiny bits. Even most explosives won't do that to a human body.


The falling millions of pounds of mass was sufficient to pulverize bones into fragments. The height of the towers, and the pressure waves created by floors crushing together displaying large volumes of air was sufficient to eject bone fragments to their found location.
Reasonable points. But it's actually very difficult to crush or blow a human body to bits, and especially multitudes of people. I think you are right that once in little pieces air pressure could eject something 250 feet.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Nope. Watch a video of an explosion. Large pieces of shrapnel and metal travel faster and father than resultant dust cloud. F=m*a. Large objects are thrown with more force if acceleration is more or less about equal.

Or momentum = mass * velocity.

If objects have about the same velocity from a resultant explosion, items of mass will have more momentum.





From: EMT - Blast Injuries

Secondary blast injuries: Are caused by debris propelled by the blast wind of
the explosion, resulting in both penetrating and blunt trauma. Individuals far
from the scene of an explosion can be struck and injured by this debris. For
example, after the 1998 terrorist bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya,
flying glass wounded victims up to 2 kilometers away. Terrorist devices often
have additional objects such as nails, nuts and bolts, etc added to the explosive
mixture to increase the effects of secondary blast injury. Military devices such as
shells and grenades may be designed in such a way as to increase the number of
fragments (shrapnel) flung by the explosion.


There should have been shrapnel with the bone fragments.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: neutronflux

Only if shrapnel was embedded in bone, you mean?

Floridagoat is right. The different weights and densities of materials, dictate how far they fly when propelled. Bone and metal have different weight per cubic inch, different densities too, so they would not normally find themselves in the same layer of the debris field.


Also, to destroy a human body takes lots of energy. Shrapnel missing a body is going to go farther then the resultant shrapnel / material mix.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: neutronflux

Steel fragments and bone fragments are different weights and densities and therefore would not likely wind up landing in the same place.


Not necessarily. If the argument was the detonation of explosives fragmented bones, then the resultant blast should have ejected shrapnel. Shrapnel created by demolitions should be found with the body fragments the blast created. Especially if shrapnel was embedded in bone.


Shrapnel embeded bone fragments would then be another weight and density combined object in motion further questioning what force would propel the objects in question 250 feet or more. My comment does not hinge on collapse pancaking or explosive expulsion.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Floridagoat

Like I said, shrapnel not absorb by the human body will have gone further. Simple fact. If a body was fragmented by shrapnel, there would be shrapnel with the bone fragments. Sorry to be morbid, and this is not out of disrespect to the victims, on 911 they were not dried bones. They were accompanied with large amounts of liquid which is very good as absorbing energy and materials of an explosion.
edit on 5-10-2016 by neutronflux because: Added morbid part.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Could they have been smashed to pieces and blown out the windows as the floors pancaked?

The weight and air pressure would be astronomical.


πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

No, but thats hillarious.


Why is that hilarious? Do you think that people died for your amusement?


Not laughing at the deaths, genius...jeez.

The EXPLANATION offered by the member is what I find absurd to the point of comedy.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TrueBrit

Nope. Watch a video of an explosion. Large pieces of shrapnel and metal travel faster and father than resultant dust cloud. F=m*a. Large objects are thrown with more force if acceleration is more or less about equal.

Or momentum = mass * velocity.

If objects have about the same velocity from a resultant explosion, items of mass will have more momentum.





From: EMT - Blast Injuries

Secondary blast injuries: Are caused by debris propelled by the blast wind of
the explosion, resulting in both penetrating and blunt trauma. Individuals far
from the scene of an explosion can be struck and injured by this debris. For
example, after the 1998 terrorist bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya,
flying glass wounded victims up to 2 kilometers away. Terrorist devices often
have additional objects such as nails, nuts and bolts, etc added to the explosive
mixture to increase the effects of secondary blast injury. Military devices such as
shells and grenades may be designed in such a way as to increase the number of
fragments (shrapnel) flung by the explosion.


There should have been shrapnel with the bone fragments.



I agree there should be everything on top of that building. Reading the bone fragments being found in the ballast containers as being overlooked more then once, I'm assuming cleanup of sharpnel,material fibers,and everything else was done early on with lack of forensic goals in mind therefore completely missing the bone fragments.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Didn't get the edit fast enough. Please look at my last post. I just don't what to repost a morbid fact.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Floridagoat

Like I said, shrapnel not absorb by the human body will have gone further. Simple fact. If a body was fragmented by shrapnel, there would be shrapnel with the bone fragments.


Agreed, but were lacking the information pertaining to sharpnel collection on this rooftop and other forensic items collected.

The 79th floor is how high in elevation on WTC towers?



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Could they have been smashed to pieces and blown out the windows as the floors pancaked?

The weight and air pressure would be astronomical.


πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

No, but thats hillarious.


Why is that hilarious? Do you think that people died for your amusement?


Not laughing at the deaths, genius...jeez.

The EXPLANATION offered by the member is what I find absurd to the point of comedy.


Do you have actual evidence of explosives and not just conjecture? Genius?



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Oh. So it's fact about the air pressure then.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Floridagoat


I think the bone fragments got caught up in the grind of collapse and became part of the dust cloud. Then mass would caused heavier items to drop out at different rates. The potential energy released during collapse imparted on objects could eject materials that gained momentum. And the floors were 40,000 square feet. Each floor system weighed about 3 million pounds. That makes for large piston like action in displacement of air.



www.scientificamerican.com...
"The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

edit on 5-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: pteridine

Oh. So it's fact about the air pressure then.



The fact is that aircraft struck the towers and set them on fire. There has been no evidence of explosives.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Working demolition over the years in various settings, you always find fine particulate matter in sealed off areas no matter how tight you try to seal it in, so it wouldn't bother me that pancaking compression would have different air densities that would carry different density objects in it , my curiosity is over the height at which the bones of firemen no higher then floor 79 wound up 250' away 512' on top of that building. So again we need to know what elevation above street level was the 79th floor if it is above 512' then it answers itself. If it isn't then I'll have trouble understanding that scenario



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
And don't forget demolition explosives strong enough to create and eject bone fragments would have been recorded on video and be audible.


Because when explosions happen that can eject bone fragments important people with video cameras always record those events? And those explosions are highly audible whereas other lesser explosions are silent and no one ever hears those?
Interesting lack of logic to appear logical you're using there.




top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join