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

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I am just pointing out that supposedly the fire department and police departments were part of the inside job. Along with the FBI, military, FAA, demolition expert's, ect. Might be careful who you keep company with.

If there was a floor by floor cutting of columns, there would have been stacks of short segmented columns with clear distinctive burn cuts.

The columns were long and twisted in the debris pile.

Wasting time on false narratives helps nobody.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I did not read every post in the thread so if this has already been asked, please forgive me.

Is it possible the explosives were carried on the planes to maximize the damage they would cause? Would that explain both theories? The planes hit the towers and start the fires. The fires burn, the towers start to weaken structurally. The bombs detonate and bring the towers down.

What was the time delay between the first plane hitting and the alleged bomb detonation in the first tower? And how does that compare to the delay between the second plane hitting the second tower and that alleged detonation?

That is one of the boxes Gage put himself in. To get the speed of collapse of the towers, according to Richard Gage and the movement, there had to be demolitions set off on each WTC floor to remove each floor's resistance.

You tell me.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The planes were in no way the causal mechanism of the near free fall total destruction of those buildings and it was certainly more than one bomb.

The planes themselves were of course, fuel air bombs (whether piloted by Hani Hanjour of Pentagon flying fame's roommate Marwan al-Shehhi, or not).

However, your question made me think and one way that those particular bones, unless belonging to a firefighter, which I have not been able to as yet prove, although it's intimated in the reporting about one, but he was Ladder 10 (I don't think that works to get his remains on the roof of the nearby building), could have, I repeat could have ended up there might have been from the secondary fuel air explosion (which was massive) of the plane's impact, not involving the passengers of the plane necessarily, but people within the building caught in that fireball explosion in that area of the building. Nevertheless, before proving the whole premise of my own OP false, it's also important to consider the condition of those bones, being completely and utterly annihilated and turned into particulate. Even someone getting blown up and out like that, isn't going to end up a pile of bones mere milometers in size.

Therefore, the prevailing view of the official story narrative hypothesis, is that those bone fragments were "ground down" in the "pancake" "collapse" and then pushed out at high velocity by the um, air compression of the collapsing floors. And as far as I know that's all they've got in support of the official story, that hypothesis - bones ground down and then jetted over and onto that roof by air compression....

Things that make ya go hmmmm....

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Then how does a blast shread bone with no accompanying shrapnel and sounds of detonations.

It's just not the compressed air. The energy of collapse pushed how much dust into the air? About 80,000 pounds?

www.uwgb.edu...

a reply to: neutronflux

There were cut columns in the pile. it was full of them. Even angled cuts just as expected.

I can only cover so much in one thread though.

You're changing the narrative (your explanation for the bone fragments), and talking about what you think should have been and/or wasn't (you don't know that there wasn't shrapnel disposed of, or say droplets of molten iron in the dust from melted, atomized steel), but even those statements that you make so boldly, aren't supported by fact, while you accuse me of forwarding a fraudulent argument/narrative, when I'm really just presenting the evidence (the bone fragments) and wishing to also have a conversation about it, without any sort of attack or ad hominem or a kind of seething, vile, snarkiness.. please, lighten up. Thanks.

I wanted the tone to be civilized, but I get the emotion involved, so it's give and take and I understand that communication is talking straight and taking what you get, but let's try to be civilized and you know, agree to disagree.

Best regards,

Ankh

a reply to: neutronflux

Well then, how to you think the bone fragments were made, and how fast?

I'm trying to imagine a collapsing building scenario.

Can you explain, precisely, how those bones were made and got over onto that roof?

Thank you.

And thanks for participating. It's just so hard going at this, for me. It's not like just a debate that I'm trying to "win", not at all.

Not a fun thing to be putting a lot of time and energy into I'll give you that much.

Your job is probably a lot easier, but the attacks and snarkiness, on top of it all, it hurts to be honest.

I'm just trying to understand.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Then you need to cite the sources that prove there was cut columns in the pile before clearing work begin. If there was cut columns, then the firefighters and police investigators clearly covered up evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux

Maybe they were blocked for a time from entering into the pile while a cleanup crew went to work, I don't know, but there were such cut columns and melted and burned columns, some evaporated in areas, really freaky stuff.

I'm not accusing your fellow firefighter's and police of engaging in a grand cover up scheme.

When it happened it was just "unimaginable" even for those working the site. Blasting caps? I don't think so. I don't know what forms of explosives or devices were used, but I think they were a little more sophisticated that what are used during a traditional boom, boom, boom, controlled demolitions.

In my mind, as far as I can tell, it's clear as day that explosives were used on the twin towers and building 7.

Hard to fathom I realize, but sometimes that which hurts, also instructs (Ben Franklin).

Never again. Never forget!

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

There were cut columns in the pile. it was full of them. Even angled cuts just as expected.

Might want to really check you sources and metabunk site.

The cut columns has been debated and debunked for the last 15 years.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Going to cite any sources on the discovery of large numbers of short cut columns in the pile before cleanup?

a reply to: neutronflux

I's all been debunked, fine, you win.

I don't have time for this discussion, I'm sorry.

You didn't answer my question though.

Good night.

All the best,

Ankh

I wish I had the aptitude for the fire department or police department. I entered the private sector after college and military.

a reply to: neutronflux

Me too.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: pteridine

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.

😂😂😂😂😂

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?

How about EVERY picture of the towers exploding ?

Every video ??

And the total vaporization of at least 75% into atomized dust that blew away in the slight breeze ???

The question should be , what evidence do we have that DOES NOT point to explosives since not one dam thing is viable regarding your "COLLAPSE" theories.

No evidence of explosives. No atomized dust, just drywall and concrete. Collapse does not equal explosion.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: pteridine

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.

Fire does not account for anything seen, and you know it.

I would like to know how the buildings pulverized themselves so mightily and yet failed to destroy most of the vehicles parked RIGHT UNDER THEM , and how the debris failed to crush into the BASEMENT LEVELS.

How do you explain that ?

A small fire near a steel structure under load:
www.post-gazette.com...

pittsburgh.cbslocal.com...
This video shows the buckled beam at around 25 seconds.

It doesn't take much heat to weaken steel and, under load, it will readily fail.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

There were cut columns in the pile. it was full of them. Even angled cuts just as expected.

Might want to really check you sources and metabunk site.

The cut columns has been debated and debunked for the last 15 years.

That topic interested me and had me going for the longest time, one quick way to determine charge cut steel from torch cut steel is dripping solidified slag. Charge cut steel blows the slag out and off the steel, torch cut steel is very easy to determine by its messy solidified slag along the entire cut.

As far as the OP, my mind is satisfied that bones were on top of a building 250 feet away 512 feet in the air. Especially if the elevation was anything above 512 feet at which point the ejection happened. Another poster mentioned 1070 feet i believe and watching the videos of how the debris came down defeats an explosive theory for me.

edit: Still having an open mind about that day, its certainly plausible that pancake compression ejected bone fragments onto that building from a higher elevation as the building collapsed.

originally posted by: Floridagoat

edit: Still having an open mind about that day, its certainly plausible that pancake compression ejected bone fragments onto that building from a higher elevation as the building collapsed.

How were the tiny bones fragments created do you think, and how fast? And how must air compression can there really be from a collapsing floor or floors?

In my mind it just doesn't make any sense, particularly when combined with all the other evidence that the buildings didn't really "collapse" at all.

That slomo zoom at the end showing what's going on under the canopy of debris ejection is very telling.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Good point.

From memory, there were explosions occurring inside the towers though -- due to aviation fuel, office equipment, etc.

If so, in combination, would you think it possible for this to have happened (i.e. without use of explosives)?

Thanks

a reply to: comfortablynumb

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that the only prevailing hypothesis in support of the official story (collapse) is that the bone fragments were made from crushing forces and a "grinding down" process, although given the rate of collapse, for those bone fragments to have been found on that adjacent roof, it must have happened, in the case of the south tower, almost instantaneously, to form part of the ejected material. And add to that the idea of massive amount of air compression pushing them out to that distance, from the floors "pancaking".

What makes this evidence so compelling is that that is the only alternative hypothesis, whereas it can be explained easily if the buildings were blown to smithereens.