I saw no hint in the original link that suggested any implication of bombing.
Neither did I, and I would be interested in an explanation of why this was even brought up.

The mere fact that the original use of the phrase, over a half century ago, referred to a point on the surface of the earth directly below the point of detonation of a bomb seems hardly reason to condemn the use of the phrase to indicate the point on the surface of the earth directly below an explosion of another sort
Okay, this old lady can see the point of this argument--as long as the word 'bombed' is being used as an adjective. My disapproval of the use of this phrase comes from my interpreting it as being used as a verb. One more time (sigh): the WTC was not bombed(v.).

EDIT: Yes, JazzO, I saw that. The usage above is intransitive, I believe; also, bombarded is not the same as bombed. I would have little trouble with the phrase, "The WTC was bombarded by planes".

You-all can go on with this or not, as you wish. I don't think I'm going to fool with it any longer. To me, saying that something was bombed STATES UNEQUIVOCALLY that actual bombs were used. The end.