It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


I just made a pretty sick discovery!!!!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 01:59 AM
ONe basic problem with using pretty much any type of genetic-specific weapon is that there's always going to be *some* genetic crossovers, even among a single family line. This means that gene-attack, if used in a area, is going to be likely to pick out someone that the attackers didn't *want* to be effective.

For example, if someone wanted to perform a gene-attack against, blacks for example, they might be tempted to use a variation of sickle cell anemia...But there's some dormant genes for black people in about 5% of non-black families; This means that perhaps 95% of the casualties would be black, but about 5% of them wouldn't even have any apparent blacks' genes in their entire family line, but still be affected.

Another example; Let's say that I was the target of a gene attack & the biologist responsible for targeting *only me* had a gene sample to work with; However, he'd also have to find *something* in my genetic code that is unique to me. There's literally only one chance in *billions* that he wouldn't also select a genetic trait that I happen to share with at least 15-20% of the rest of humanity.

There's still too little known about genetics (according to what knowledge I can find on it) to be able to be 100% accurate when selecting targets for victims.

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 02:56 AM
as are other sceptics here, with regard to a "genetic weapon". It's called the genetic code because that's what it is and even now it is nothing like "cracked".
You have two essential problems: what to do - and how to do it. You would need a vast amount of information to isolate a "group" -if it could ever be done: presumably a complex of genes does finally select black skin or blue eyes; but we're a long way from having such information. And would that be enough? Humans are all genetically almost identical: the racial characteristics are statistically relatively trivial.
Secondly -if you had the information how would you you put it to use as a weapon? One can imagine some long-term plan to devastate a race over 3-4 generations,say.
There were such rumours millennia ago about the first HIV/AIDS cases and there is no doubt that, in a sense, Mother Nature does this all the time: certain individuals turn out to be immune to certain killer epidemics.
Even then: knowing how to save X is not the same as knowing how to kill Y.
One has to, say, identify black/white/brown/yellow skin at some chemical level and then trigger some substance that will instantly accuse death or incapacitation while leaving everyone else unharmed. And even then, because of "racial" intermixture over hundreds or thousands of years, there woud be exceptions: how would it deal with mixed-race people? When does black become brown and so on?
I could just about imagine something that would kill all females or all males or all sexually immature (or mature) humans - and that is stretching the imagination; but one could see targeting a genetic or physiological distinction that broad as being just about feasible.
But anything more precise is at present inconceivable.

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 10:28 AM
Well on the news they said out of 700 hostages, 645 are still hospitalized because of the gas that was used.Kinda throws out you gentic gas theory.The Russians still haven't said what the gas was,but "experts" are saying it might be an aerosal form of valium,or bz gas.

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 10:57 AM
Well I do not take anything they say on the news for a fact, sleepgas my ass, if you want to believe that fine by me but sleeping gass does not kill.

I saw the pictures of all these rebels, they had no bullet wounds, nor did I see any blood, did government clean up all this blood before showing it on the news???

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 11:18 AM
um .... right. methinks these ideas of a 'genetic agent' are a tad far-fetched, unfounded, paranoid, and many other adjectives besides.

courtesy of the bcc:

How special forces ended siege

Gas 'killed Moscow hostages'

Rights group demands siege gas inquiry

- qo.

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 12:43 PM
Yes I do believe I will take the news over deluded,paronoid ranting.

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 01:25 PM
The notion that an unregulated amount of knockout gas killed some people is far-fetched, but the idea of a genetic kill-cloud isn't.
Oooookie-dokie then!

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 02:47 PM
There is one simple method to kill given individual using his blood-type specific poison - impossible in that case.

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 08:41 PM
why the media are ranting about this one is beyond me: I doubt if half the readership could write formulae for carbon dioxide.
Lots of babbling about BZ (3 quenedyl benzillate, I think, if memory serves - I'll look it up) but I'm not convinced.
This is quite well-known: developed by US & used to a limited extent in Vietnam as a hallucinogenic incapacitating agent. It was so unpredictable and susceptible to the wind taht it was abandoned.
There was a film called "Jacob's Ladder" made about it.
Why the Russians should be using a forty-year old gas that the US abandoned, I do not know.

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 09:31 PM
I doubt that we can yet see clearly much more than 1% of what was going on here.
But - as it stands:
BEFORE: 50 potential murderers 7-800 potential murder-victims
AFTER no potential murderers 5-600 no longer if fear of their lives.

A brutal arithmetic -but it seems to be the best guide we have to the wisdom of the course the Russians took. And, it appears that they did what had to be done.
WHY they did it is, of course, another issue.

posted on Oct, 27 2002 @ 10:06 PM
what I thought was disturbing, if true, [and who really knows whats going on], is the doctors weren't told what sort of gas was used. Plus the possibility it's a gas they aren't suppose to have or use, perhaps that's why they are keeping it under wraps, am I just 'master of the obvious' here or what.

[Edited on 28-10-2002 by Bob88]

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 06:23 AM
depleted uranium, Gulf Syndrome, Agent Orange....
these people never tell their own side the truth: let alone anyone else.
Sifting the drivel has given me several accounts to the the effect that the purpose of the gas was to incapacitate almost instantly: so strong, a certain density, odourless, tasteless would appear to be the recipe.
It is reported taht it was not the gas itelf taht killed hostages but gas-induced nausea as a result of which many suffocated and, as the Nord-Ost theatre was stormed by Spetsnaz rather than nurses -treatment was apparently not available in time.
This must mean antidote: I find it hard to believe that such soldiers do not have pretty good first-aid training, given the duties they may be assigned to.

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 06:32 AM
Seems like the latest reports will prove me right. Any of you heard the poll conducted about the freedom of press? geuss who was in the top ten of most press free countries? Yes you geussed it right, Europe!

Number one being Norway followed by Finland, the Netherlands and a whole bunch of other European countries!
Wanna know where the US was placed?
A measily 17th place and merely due to the imprisonment of journalists in the US who didn't want to reveal their sources of information. Hows that for freedom of press hey, stick them journalists in jail for not revealing their sources! Great freedom that is, what a laugh!

freedom of press

freedom of press

And as for the Russian hostage situation images I've seen have proven me right about anything I mentioned.
I've seen images of inside the theater and none of the hijackers with explosives had been shot. They simply died just sitting there. The ringleader even had his bottle of cognac in his hands when he died from the gas.
No hostages have been killed by gunfire and the only one killed by gunfire is the woman who was shot at the first day. All the rest were killed by the gas.

Of all that I could see on the images is that 20 terrorists have been shot by the Russians while they stormed the theater. The women and man that were sitting in the theater did not die of gunshots but where killed by the gas instantly. Believe me, on the news over here in Europe, yes you know the unbiased news, we were shown all bodies (a statement was first made that these pictures might be upsetting) while the french cameraman filmed the entire theater. Geuss you didn't get to see that overthere did you :-)

So who's right now hey? Instant death because of the gas, russians survived albeit with a struggle. The muslims died instantly with bottles of cognac clutched in their hands, explosives not even detonated.

To even further balance it for you who think this was justified. At the start of the hostage taking one woman was shot. Later the Russians stormed the building and injected gas. Result 115 died as a result of the gas and none died because of the terrorists shot them.
If the Russians really cared about their people they would have let the doctors know what gas they used so they could treat the people in hospital who are still suffering today from the effects of the gas.

Geuss not many of you know that the fact that Russia did use a nerve agent which is prohibited by the nonproliferation treaty on bio-chemical warfare and as such they would be in violation of that treaty. The word Iraq springs to mind.
I wonder if the United States will, in accordance with their stance towards Iraq, demand clearification from Russia.

And to tell it was to only thing to do....uhmm lame cop-out ring a bell. Killing 115 of their own people perfectly well knowing what the gas might do and then in the aftermath not even mentioning this to the doctors. This was all powerplay, nothing more, nothing less. Russia didn't want those Chechens to have their way and no hostage would be this important and is simply another victim in their way to crush the opposition.


posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 08:03 AM
Some detail here from the London Times -and links on the page:
It's still just up-market scribbling; but enough of interest: vagueness and insinuation, silly non sequitur's such as "smellt like almonds" ( not Cyanide -Oh No !!!) but enough to worry us all.
Some talk now of soldiers trying to administer antidotes and apparently none of the soldiers was wearing protective suiting.
Death toll mounting horribly.
The Times just about coming to conclusions and possible motives about 2 days after ATS posters did.

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 08:38 AM
How come no one is asking the "you- can't-beat a real-world-domestic-counter-insurgency-scenario-so-why-not-test-IT" Question?

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 09:03 AM

"I've seen images of inside the theater and none of the hijackers with explosives had been shot. They simply died just sitting there. The ringleader even had his bottle of cognac in his hands when he died from the gas."

don't take that at face value. the bcc reporter on the scene at the time of the attack said that they had to wait over an hour before they were allowed inside the theatre to film. all of the dead hostages had been removed by then, and the terrorist clearly placed into seats around the auditorium. hence the pictures give no real clue as to what happened inside the theatre.

- qo.

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 09:05 AM
no "real clues" but a lot of deliberate false ones, I suspect.

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 09:07 AM
that "Muslim fanatic plus brandy bottle" hasn't attracted much attention yet.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in