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

originally posted by: Floridagoat
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

I don't know the specs for the twin towers, but I read that about 14 feet is about average in high rises per floor, so it would be 1106 feet up at the 79th floor.

Here's an audio transcript from the firefighters radio communications as they were working to put out the fires up around the 78th, 79th floor, and were in the process of doing just that when...

I'm trying to search around on the net to see if I can find anything to show who was ID'd from the tiny bones fragments found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building.

So far I'm coming up dry, and cannot verify that firefighters were among those ID'd.

I'd appreciate any help in this regard so as to try to get a possible fix on at least one of the victims and where they might have been in the building (South Tower), firefighter or otherwise.

We know that the onset of destruction occurred around the area of the plane impact or somewhere around or between the 78th to 84th floors, although the top block, as it somehow righted itself from falling off (very strange in terms of laws of momentum), basically exploded and disintegrated while plummeting.

Some posters have suggested the bones fragments were created through a "grinding action" of the floors "pancaking", but would that occur instantaneously because within a mere second or two from the onset of "collapse", we'd be looking at a level of the building well below that of the 79th floor area, bearing in mind that the Deutsche Bank building was 157.6 m (517 ft) tall and somewhere around 250 feet away from the South Tower.

For floor height - I'm having a hard time finding that, for a crude approximation we can take the height of 1,350 feet and divide by 110, giving us 12.27 feet, although the lobby was certainly taller, putting the 79th floor at about 970 feet.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Crew in South Tower on 78 th floor Sky Lobby would have been from Ladder 15, Battalion Chief Orio J Palmer, Fire
Marshall Ron Bucca

Chief's aide Steve Belson was in stairway several floors below climbing up to rejoin his chief

a reply to: firerescue

What are your thoughts about all the tiny bone fragments found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

What are your thoughts about all the tiny bone fragments found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building?

I think that it is definitely an interesting bit of evidence that deserves further investigation. And beyond that, no comment.

But it doesn't support your OP.

Just more blatant evidence that most will deny or somehow rationalize away.
Our government could never do that to us.
I'm sure the sailors on the USS Arizona thought much the same thing.

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.

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 reply to: AnkhMorpork

I have seen human beings reduced to scraps (human hamburger as sometimes called) from a plane crash

The top 22 floors of South Tower collapsed down into the rest of the structure with incredible violence

It was the equivalent of being in an ore crusher as pieces of steel and other debris were churned as the building
crumbled

The debris from South Tower was ejected southward toward Liberty Street and West Street - 90 West St at corner
was set on fire by debris from South Tower

Deutsche Bank was the tallest structure in the area so would expect to catch most of the debris from South tower

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

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.

I never said the bone fragments were distributed by any explosions.

You really need to study rod mills or ball mills that can pulverize coal with just a ten or twenty ton charge. (As in weight of rods or balls loaded into the mill to create a grind.)

The weight of a WTC tower floor was about 3 million pounds, or 1,500 tons.

28 floors of one tower initiated a collapse. That acted as a 43,000 ton piston with a surface area of about 40,000 square feet. The falling mass grew floor by floor. The old question. Do you want to be hit by a 44,500 ton solid, or by 44,500 tons of bricks. It's still 44,500 falling tons that grew 1,500 tons each floor.

The falling mass of broken building materials created a grinding action.

I am starting there was enough energy imparted onto pulverization human remains to entertain them into the dust cloud. The mass and momentum would dictate how they would be distributed from the cloud.

If the fragments were expelled by the detonation of demolitions, then fragments of shrapnel worked on by demolitions would accompany and be entrained with the bone fragments.

If you don't believe there was enough energy to distribute remains with the dust cloud, then you need to stop with the innuendo and state a clear line of logic for debate

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 ?

Be cause steel beams, car sheet metal, engine blocks, and car frames have different properties than thin concrete slabs, drywall, plastic office equipment, and human bodies.

a reply to: firerescue

You do understand that there were around a thousand bones fragments found, none more than half an inch long on top of a 500+ foot tall building half a block away.

According of the official story hypothesis, the floors pancaked down (even though that's not what's observed).

I have no doubt that such a process would crush the human body, but not all but atomize it and send it out in a cloud.

What are you thinking?

You're a fireman, right?

I'm surprised at the position you're taking.

Those guys were in the process of putting the fires OUT when the building exploded and imploded to the ground to within a few seconds of absolute freefall in nothing but air.

I suppose I understand why you might have to take the position that you have, but don't you find that it's a bit of a reach when we look at this particular evidence?

A big part of my own motivation in sharing this information is because the victims, included the firefighters, deserve so much better.

Pretty much ALL the evidence supports the explosives hypothesis and doesn't, the "collapse" hypothesis, but this piece of evidence stands out.

Could you describe precisely how on earth that those tiny bone fragments could have ended up where they were found, absent the use of explosives to first particulate the entire human body, then shoot the bone shrapnel over and onto the roof of that other building? Thanks.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
and how the debris failed to crush into the BASEMENT LEVELS.

To start a debate on this line of logic, can you cite a source that claims the distribution of debris was different in the basements, which basements, and a comparison to the above ground debris density.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Then where is the shrapnel that should be present with the bone fragments. Care to elaborate how a body is shredded by a demolitions blast with no shrapnel?

If there was demolition blasts, then there should be audio indicative of the detonation of explosives.

And Richard Gage said the towers were brought down by incendiaries that only fizzled with no flash. Gage's explanation of no sounds of demolitions setting off in WTC videos.

Which conspiracist has the truth. You or Richard Gage?

How would incendiaries fragment bones and expel the fragments.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's not just a "debate". We're trying to describe reality in terms of what happened there, and then working to come up with the best explanation, not matter what that might be.

It's not entirely subjective and simply open to interpretation, as if we're "debating" an issue of some kind.

People are of course entitled to their own viewpoint and stance in relation to it, but it's not like a mere debate, particularly when given the significance and the implications of it in the context of modern history.

I'm concerned with trying to honestly fathom whether the building's "collapsed" progressively, like some sort of accordion-like crush down, or, were blown up with the use of explosives, in that case the plane impacts functioning as a type of real life ruse of sorts to "sell" the cause as one of collapse.

From everything that I've seen, including this evidence, it's not a building "collapsing" that we are witnessing.

As the other poster pointed out, all one need do is to look at and time the destruction sequence.

There was practically ZERO resistance encountered, all the way to the ground. What you're asking us to believe on the face of it is absurd.

But I'm not just operating from credulity, but examining all available evidence and weighing it relative to these two competing and diametrically opposed hypothesis according to Occam's razor.

One cannot begin and end with only one possible assumption as the NIST and FEMA reports did (although in the FEMA report they admitted that they could not account for the cause of the destruction of Building 7), science and observation doesn't work that way.

We are not constrained by any sort of a priori bias to simply accept and believe what we are generally led to believe as the predominant view held by the "relevant ruling class (elite)" (Philip Zelikow) and MSM.

The "slight of hand" is obvious.

However, the "problem" with the alternative hypothesis (explosives) is that indeed, plane's did impact.

Furthermore, the destruction ensued from around the impact areas of the building.

This is where everyone gets lost and the "conspiracy theories" begin.

If explosives were used, and the first hand eye witness accounts also support that contention, then this "problem" for "conspiracy" theorists (the two planes), also forms the "crux" quite literally, of the official story narrative. Planes hit, the buildings collapsed, we were attacked.

It's inconceivable enough to think that the buildings were blown up with explosives, which they can be plainly seen to do so, but to think that the plane(s) that impacted them had no one on board at all - sends the contention that it was a murderous hoax in to the domain of something that must be ridiculed and likened to denying that men landed on the moon.

On the face of it, it's absurd, and cannot be believed or accepted, but this is ATS.

We are allowed to examine all evidence and all information and to weight the two hypothesis relative to the physical reality of what actually took place.

Thus, in my view, the only way to really examine the entire crime scene is to examine all aspect of the nature of the crime committed, including the piloting and flight of those aircraft, particularly that of "flight 175".

If that aircraft can also be shown not to have been piloted by Marwan al-Shehhi, and if the passport of Satam Muhammed Abdel Rahman al-Suqami (quite the name) was a plant by the unit of that police chief that Bush tried, unsuccessfully to nominate to lead the new department pf Homeland Security, Bernie something I think.

Then, well, we have a problem and Lucy has some 'splaining to do.

This forum, ATS, Above Top Secret, is surely the one place on the Internet where we really can talk about all of this freely and openly and with civility (within reason, given the nature of what we're really talking about here).

That's what makes this a good thread, and so far it's been good, and please forgive me if and when I get a little heated. I know everyone means well and is just doing the best they can with the resources available to them to make sense of the world.

I'll be the first to admit that 9/11 truth does not really appear to make sense, on the face of it, but I'm also prepared to tell and show people why that is and why it's the official story, not the alternative hypothesis that cannot be accepted in light of all available information and phenomenon according to Occam's razor.

Best regards,

Ankh

a reply to: neutronflux

Richard Gage doesn't say that only incendiaries were used or that any one type of explosive was used and theorizes that a multitude of very high grade explosives including thermite cutter charges on core columns where employed in one form or another.

It's not required to prove (which or what kind of explosives or residue or shrapnel) if the physical occurrence of destruction cannot be described or explained in terms of the official narrative and collectively held assumption of a collapse from plane impacts and fires.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

A bit part of my own motivation in sharing this information is because the victims, included the firefighters, deserve so much better.

I thought the conspiracists narrative was the NYFD and NYPD were part of the false flag operation, helped with WTC 7, and hid evidence found in the WTC debris. You know, the remains and fragments of blasting caps, shape charges, steel columns drilled for demolitions attachment, and remote detonators indicative of a floor by floor detonation of demolitions.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: neutronflux

Richard Gage doesn't say that only incendiaries were used or that any one type of explosive was used and theorizes that a multitude of very high grade explosives including thermite cutter charges on core columns where employed in one form or another.

It's not required to prove (which or what kind of explosives or residue or shrapnel) if the physical occurrence of destruction cannot be described or explained in terms of the official narrative and collectively held assumption of a collapse from plane impacts and fires.

Then there should be audible sounds of explosions in the WTC videos. Sorry.

a reply to: neutronflux

Hey hey please settle down, "conspiracist" sounds a lot like a derogatory term like "truther", there's no need for that kind of tone in these discussions.

Playful sarcasm sure, but seething, no. That's out of bounds of civility and fair play.

I'm trying to be reasonable and not too harsh or snarky.

This is a conversation.

The new rules of this forum explain it perfectly.

Please chill.

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?