9/11 Photos, or Lack Thereof...

Originally posted by billybob
i can believe that enough dna of each passenger survived the fire, but then....
where did they get dna samples for all the passengers to match to?

The passengers relatives came forward to provide them, the hijackers relatives did not (at least not in the first weeks). The end result was that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology were able to identify all but one of the passengers, and so picked out which were the hijackers by a process of elimination. Read more about this at www.cbsnews.com...

Incidentally, this also debunks the Thomas Olmsted "autopsy list" myth, where he pretends no hijackers on his list of identified bodies means they weren't on the plane (www.sierratimes.com...). What he's missing is that his list only contains the names of the people identified by the pathologists. There were no DNA samples to identify the hijackers at the time, and that's the only reason they're not on the list -- it doesn't show they weren't there at all.

Originally posted by bsbray11
This just makes the total vaporization of about 1000 WTC victims even more pondersome.

They weren't vaporized. You're taking one word from Charles Hirsch and using it out of context. Here's a quote about what he said, and the clarification from a colleague.

But Dr. Charles Hirsch, the chief medical examiner, triggered an angry response two weeks ago when he told grieving relatives that many bodies – no one is sure how many – had been "vaporized" and were beyond identification.

Hirsch declined to be interviewed. But spokeswoman Ellen Borakove said he meant that bodies were consumed by blazing fuel from the two crashed airliners, or "rendered into dust" when the 1,100-foot skyscrapers collapsed, one concrete slab floor onto another.
www.fdiai.org...

So nothing here about 1000 people, he's just saying he doesn't expect remains to be found for some victims. If you want clarification, look at what he said elsewhere.

However, since the decay of tissue accelerates with time and high temperatures, authorities are unlikely to be able to identify all of the victims, Hirsch said.

"Some people just don't exist anymore, due to the high heat and passage of time," he said.
archives.cnn.com...

So that is the initial heat, and the passage of time that's caused the identification problems. They have plenty more body parts, almost 10,000 (www.washingtonpost.com...), so the issue isn't a lack of samples because people were "vaporized" -- it's identifying them from the remains later.

Ellen Borakove said he meant that bodies were ... rendered into dust"

"Some people just don't exist anymore"

These statements both contradict your conclusion:

They have plenty more body parts, almost 10,000 (www.washingtonpost.com...), so the issue isn't a lack of samples because people were "vaporized" -- it's identifying them from the remains later.

So they were vaporized, in the sense that they no longer exist and likely suffered the same fate as the concrete in the building. It's not out of context; you even clarified that he meant they were utterly destroyed and "rendered into dust."

Now let's consider why, leaving Mr. Hirsch simply to tell us what happened to the bodies, and not overstep his boundaries to explain to us his flimsy theory.

Again, this won't happen from debris falling onto something. Fires will only do this with sustained very high temperatures, of which there is no evidence of in the WTC towers. And again, as I told Zaphod: as soon as you manage to vaporize someone by dropping steel and concrete on them, you come let us know on this thread.

Refer to the complete pulverization of concrete. There was something going on during collapse that was generating more force than a collapse by itself would, as no gravity-driven collapse will pulverize all of the concrete in a building into fine dust, even as the building is just beginning to fall (huge dust clouds shooting from the building as it fell).

Why would that force not effect the bodies? I rather think that it would have, don't you? This simultaneously being something no gravity-driven collapse could produce by any reasonable account. Virtually the only things left of the buildings were the steel and dust, and other small pieces of debris.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Ellen Borakove said he meant that bodies were ... rendered into dust"

"Some people just don't exist anymore"

They do no such thing. They clearly illustrate that he was not talking about being "vaporised" at the time of the collapse, and instead he's referring to insufficient remains being left to produce DNA. Which is no surprise when fires persisted for months after the collapse, an issue you seem to be ignoring.

Also, having nearly 10,000 recovered body parts that are still unidentified proves your contention that the missing victims were "vaporised" is incorrect.

They do no such thing. They clearly illustrate that he was not talking about being "vaporised" at the time of the collapse, and instead he's referring to insufficient remains being left to produce DNA. Which is no surprise when fires persisted for months after the collapse, an issue you seem to be ignoring.

According to your own quotes, it appears they didn't give that assumption much attention, either:

Hirsch declined to be interviewed. But spokeswoman Ellen Borakove said he meant that bodies were consumed by blazing fuel from the two crashed airliners, or "rendered into dust" when the 1,100-foot skyscrapers collapsed, one concrete slab floor onto another.

Doesn't say anything about post-collapse "fires," and as far as I know there were none. Some of the steel was still hot and smoldering, but that was it. And that statement isn't even applicable to all of Ground Zero.

But rather, the statement reflects the opinion that whatever destroyed the bodies did so before and/or during the collapses. Specifically, they suggest the fires and collapses themselves did the incredible damage. I would say the collapse would have done the majority of the damage, but only after explosives are taken into account.

Also, having nearly 10,000 recovered body parts that are still unidentified proves your contention that the missing victims were "vaporised" is incorrect.

I never stated that they were all vaporized. Rather, somewhere around an estimated 1000 were completely destroyed according to reports. I suppose it all depended on how close they were to the detonations. But did I ever say all unidentified victims were vaporized?

Those 10,000 body parts are not proof of anything. Over 200 pieces have been linked to a single individual. That means over 200 pieces of 1 person. These numbers of pieces are in no way reflective of the number of people that were "'rendered into dust' when the 1,100-foot skyscrapers collapsed."

What you should try to find out is how building fires and gravity-driven collapses alone would shred people into so many people, even 'rendering to dust', as concrete is being turned to a fine powder, spewing from the buildings as dust even as they just begin collapse. It doesn't really add up.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by bsbray11]

"Smoldering"?? The temperatures at Ground Zero were estimated as high as 1300 degrees for weeks and even months after the collapse. Ground Zero showed up as a blazing hotspot on infrared sattelite photos for a long time after 9/11. I think that's a little more than "smoldering".

Originally posted by Zaphod58
"Smoldering"?? The temperatures at Ground Zero were estimated as high as 1300 degrees for weeks and even months after the collapse. Ground Zero showed up as a blazing hotspot on infrared sattelite photos for a long time after 9/11. I think that's a little more than "smoldering".

There was not a fire.

smol·der also smoul·der (smōl'dər)
intr.v., -dered, -der·ing, -ders.

1. To burn with little smoke and no flame.

Hmm. It appears as though the word I used was actually pretty accurate after all.

Bear in mind that those "ideal cremation conditions" would apply only to whole bodies.

Fragmented bodies don't require anywhere near the same consistent temperature to be reduced to dust, vaporized, etc.

Excerpt from page noted elsewhere:

" Borakove said her office agrees with Baden's calculation — as applied to a
full body. "But when the planes hit the buildings, the bodies that were in the
planes as well as some of the bodies that were in the buildings were
fragmented upon impact, and those fragments burn more quickly," she said.

The combination of fire and compression from tons of rubble could reduce a
human body to a small amount of tissue and bone, said Dr. Cyril Wecht, a top
forensic pathologist in Pittsburgh. And finding such small samples of DNA in
1.2 million tons of rubble spread over 16 acres is a difficult proposition."

Full linky here, as someone else previously noted

Originally posted by bsbray11



What you should try to find out is how building fires and gravity-driven collapses alone would shred people into so many people, even 'rendering to dust', as concrete is being turned to a fine powder, spewing from the buildings as dust even as they just begin collapse. It doesn't really add up.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by bsbray11]

That dust was something. it covered everything and the air wass thick with it the first night, the ground covered with feet of it in some places, and store fronts with the windows busted out from the blast were completely filled with it. The smell was definitely peculiar if not nausiating. First 3 nights, there were parts no wholes that I saw and the debris was mind blowing. 1 month later went back on a hard hat tour and in three distict large areas there was smoke still rising from the ground...rat traps were everywhere in the pit

Originally posted by bsbray11
Doesn't say anything about post-collapse "fires," and as far as I know there were none. Some of the steel was still hot and smoldering, but that was it.

Really? Here's a report from December 19th, 2001:

Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Just in the last week the fires have actually been put out," Gov. George Pataki told a group of about 50 upstate elected officials during a tour of the disaster site on Wednesday.

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon confirmed later Wednesday that the main bodies of fire have been extinguished, although he said small pockets or "hot spots" are still being discovered.
www.cbsnews.com...

Three months of fires? Seems to me that may have destroyed rather a lot.

Those 10,000 body parts are not proof of anything.

Your contention is that 1000 people were vaporized immediately before or during the collapse. Does that stand up? I say no. There were 2,749 victims, of which 1588 have been identified (www.cbsnews.com...). So they weren't "vaporized".

That leaves 1,161 unidentified. Is it really hard to believe that the 10,000 non-vaporised body parts may represent many of them, with the rest lost in the weeks of fires, or perhaps just not identified within the wreckage? (Because I'm no expert, but I'd guess spotting bone fragments amongst all the other debris at Ground Zero wasn't easy).

No, it's not difficult in the slightest. You don't need to invent new reasons to explain why some WTC victims weren't identified -- it's really not a surprise at all.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by ashmok]

I think much of the human matter was close to obliteration. A body cant stand up to the force of thousands and thousands of crushing tons. The bits were very very small...and the fires continued to burn. Distict constant smoke rising from several areas within the pit for months. You could smell the burning. As the crews dug deeper, more hot spots were uncovered and the human matter in these places were completely incinerated and undiscernable for the ash of other materials, but here and there there was obvious biological body matter uncovered continually...When something of significance was uncovered everything would stop and, well ..respect was given whenever possible. Jackets of rescue workers held up pretty well which fortunatly gave identity to whatever else held up.

Really? Here's a report from December 19th, 2001:

Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Just in the last week the fires have actually been put out," Gov. George Pataki told a group of about 50 upstate elected officials during a tour of the disaster site on Wednesday.

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon confirmed later Wednesday that the main bodies of fire have been extinguished, although he said small pockets or "hot spots" are still being discovered.
www.cbsnews.com...

Three months of fires? Seems to me that may have destroyed rather a lot.

Oh, ok. So now you'll provide the evidence that the fires were hot enough to cremate a body.

Your contention is that 1000 people were vaporized immediately before or during the collapse.

During.

Does that stand up? I say no. There were 2,749 victims, of which 1588 have been identified (www.cbsnews.com...). So they weren't "vaporized".

That leaves 1,161 unidentified. Is it really hard to believe that the 10,000 non-vaporised body parts may represent many of them, with the rest lost in the weeks of fires, or perhaps just not identified within the wreckage? (Because I'm no expert, but I'd guess spotting bone fragments amongst all the other debris at Ground Zero wasn't easy).

No, it's not difficult in the slightest. You don't need to invent new reasons to explain why some WTC victims weren't identified -- it's really not a surprise at all.

That doesn't really offer any conclusions, except to say there may have been two possibilities as to guessing what happened to the unidentified victims.

Again, I refer you to the concrete. Completely pulverized into dust. Did three months of fire do that, too? No, it didn't. It was all pulverized during collapse.

And here's my connection to the body vaporization: if something turned the concrete into a fine dust, even as the collapse was just beginning and had not yet gained momentum, wouldn't that force similarly effect bodies? Or are bodies strangely invincible during collapses, while all the concrete around them is being turned to a fine powder?

I don't see any reason as to why it would not. That would suggest to me that you don't even need to offer an alternate explanation as to what may have happened to those bodies. To suggest something completely and utterly destroyed the concrete and yet left bodies mostly unaffected is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That's enough info right there to begin to realize what the primary source of energy was in vaporizing these people. The fires (which were of course, not hot enough), or being smashed by alleged falling slabs of concrete will not vaporize a body in the same way the concrete was pulverized.

Once again,



Hm, hm, hm. And that's only what happened to the concrete. Gee... I wonder what that same amount of force did to the bodies in that building. >.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh, ok. So now you'll provide the evidence that the fires were hot enough to cremate a body.

Zaphod already pointed out to you that hot spots were estimated at up to 1300 degrees F, and as these estimates were taken from above it's likely that temperatures at the fire centre were even higher (www.pastpeak.com.... 1600 degrees F is the minimum for cremation, where a complete body will be destroyed in 90 to 120 minutes; I have no problem in believing a slightly lower temperature could to the same thing if it's extended over days, especially if we're talking about smaller body parts.

We may not require complete cremation, either. The end result doesn't need to be ash, just sufficiently blackened that it's not recognised as a bone fragment.

That doesn't really offer any conclusions, except to say there may have been two possibilities as to guessing what happened to the unidentified victims.

How do you expect me, or anybody else to offer "conclusions" or "prove" what happened to the bodies? You're certainly not doing it, there's nothing here other than conjecture.

So, what can we can do instead? We can look at what we know. We can look at the collapse, and know that few bodies are going to be left intact. We can look at how many people are left unidentified, how many unidentified body parts there are, and perhaps get an idea for how many bodies have been destroyed, or had remains that weren't recovered. We can look at potential causes of that, like the fires afterwards, and think about how many body parts they might have destroyed.

Then, after we're considered everything we know, we can move into opinion and take a view on whether more bodies have mysteriously disappeared than we might have expected. I don't think they have, and I don't see many other people overly surprised by the figures, either.

To suggest something completely and utterly destroyed the concrete and yet left bodies mostly unaffected is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sure. Good job no-one is suggesting that then, isn't it? If one floor in the WTC collapses onto another, which happened to contain people, then I wouldn't expect them to be "mostly unaffected". I'd expect only small body parts to be recovered, if any at all after the fires, which -- oh, look -- is exactly what happened. Talk about the concrete, if you like, but I see no need for explosives to explain why some remains may never have been recovered. No need at all.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by ashmok]

You can hit concrete with a hammer and break off parts of it, if you hit it right, and then keep hammering it into dust. Now what do you think will happen to the same concrete when a couple hundred thousand tons of steel comes down on it, and then it slams into more concrete, then hits the ground? The steel pillars falling would probably punch holes through at least some of the concrete, causing dust to fly.

this isn't really relevant to the discussion, but has anyone found this???

1.Open up a blank Word document.2. Type in Q33 NY in capitals (this is the flight number of the 1st plane to hit the WTC)(worldtradecenter)3. Highlight it.4. Change the font size to 48.5. Change the actual font to wingdings (1).


the results are really kind of well, strange...is someone trying to tell us something here?

Originally posted by dawnstar
the results are really kind of well, strange...is someone trying to tell us something here?

No, because Q3 NNY wasn't the flight number of any of the 9/11 flights.

Zaphod already pointed out to you that hot spots were estimated at up to 1300 degrees F, and as these estimates were taken from above it's likely that temperatures at the fire centre were even higher (www.pastpeak.com... 1600 degrees F is the minimum for cremation, where a complete body will be destroyed in 90 to 120 minutes; I have no problem in believing a slightly lower temperature could to the same thing if it's extended over days, especially if we're talking about smaller body parts.

We may not require complete cremation, either. The end result doesn't need to be ash, just sufficiently blackened that it's not recognised as a bone fragment.

Cremation is done with open flames, and the temperature dropped over time. Not only was this heat 300 degrees cooler at its hottest (dropped significantly as time went on), but there were no open flames, so you can't compare this to cremation. It would be more like cooking than cremating, unfortunately.

How do you expect me, or anybody else to offer "conclusions" or "prove" what happened to the bodies? You're certainly not doing it, there's nothing here other than conjecture.

So, what can we can do instead? We can look at what we know.

That's exactly what I'M doing. Look what happened to the concrete during collapse. I say the same thing happened to the bodies in the building!

Your conjecture, because it as just as much conjecture as my idea, is that rather than being damaged during collapse as they should have been, by such a force totally destroying the concrete, instead they were cooked afterwards in the smolder.

We can look at the collapse, and know that few bodies are going to be left intact. We can look at how many people are left unidentified, how many unidentified body parts there are, and perhaps get an idea for how many bodies have been destroyed, or had remains that weren't recovered. We can look at potential causes of that, like the fires afterwards, and think about how many body parts they might have destroyed.

Again, you ignore the vast amount of destruction to the bodies that would have occured during collapse from the explosions.

Then, after we're considered everything we know, we can move into opinion and take a view on whether more bodies have mysteriously disappeared than we might have expected. I don't think they have, and I don't see many other people overly surprised by the figures, either.

Based on what? x.x

You're basically saying that you believe more bodies were destroyed in the smolder after the collapses than were utterly destroyed in the collapses themselves. There is no evidence of this.

However, we know what happened to the concrete. This totally invalidates your claim, as concrete is not only stronger than a human body, but was also all over the building, and it was completely turned to dust. You've yet to explain to me how this left the bodies unharmed, or how this would not completely and utterly destroy a body.

How is concrete throughout the building turned to dust without doing the same to human beings? Magic?

Sure. Good job no-one is suggesting that then, isn't it? If one floor in the WTC collapses onto another, which happened to contain people, then I wouldn't expect them to be "mostly unaffected". I'd expect only small body parts to be recovered, if any at all after the fires, which -- oh, look -- is exactly what happened. Talk about the concrete, if you like, but I see no need for explosives to explain why some remains may never have been recovered. No need at all.

So concrete slabs falling on each other is what turned them all into dust?

Again, I present the graphic:

You can hit concrete with a hammer and break off parts of it, if you hit it right, and then keep hammering it into dust. Now what do you think will happen to the same concrete when a couple hundred thousand tons of steel comes down on it, and then it slams into more concrete, then hits the ground? The steel pillars falling would probably punch holes through at least some of the concrete, causing dust to fly.

This is no explanation whatsoever for why all the concrete in both building was turned into powder. You could expect some dust from the buildings, of course, but every freaking piece of it gone? You're going to have to prove that contention with something other than a hammer.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not only was this heat 300 degrees cooler at its hottest

Nope, that was based on NASA measurements taken on September 16th, so there were 5 days for some fires to extinguish and others to cool. We don't know what it was at its hottest.

there were no open flames

In some areas, perhaps, but there's no way you can say that for the whole area.

Your conjecture, because it as just as much conjecture as my idea, is that rather than being damaged during collapse as they should have been, by such a force totally destroying the concrete, instead they were cooked afterwards in the smolder.

No-one is saying that bodies weren't damaged during the collapse, that's just a straw man argument. They were damaged by the initial impact, the fires that followed, the collapse and the subsequent fire.

You've yet to explain to me how this left the bodies unharmed, or how this would not completely and utterly destroy a body.

More straw men. No-one is saying the bodies were unharmed -- the collapse is exactly why very few intact bodies were found.

So concrete slabs falling on each other is what turned them all into dust?

Not dust, however as Tinkleflowers post pointed out earlier...

The combination of fire and compression from tons of rubble could reduce a human body to a small amount of tissue and bone, said Dr. Cyril Wecht, a top forensic pathologist in Pittsburgh.

No-one is saying that bodies weren't damaged during the collapse, that's just a straw man argument. They were damaged by the initial impact, the fires that followed, the collapse and the subsequent fire.

...

More straw men. No-one is saying the bodies were unharmed -- the collapse is exactly why very few intact bodies were found.

My words were "utterly destroy," not simply harm. You're suggesting the utter destruction was not from the collapse, despite the fate of the concrete slabs, which were completely and thoroughly turned to dust during the collapses.



I think we've made our points; there's no use continuing to go in circles.

The concrete was turned to dust during collapse; there's no refuting that. I contend the same force similarly destroyed many victims. You contend it happened later from the smolder, of which there is no evidence of open flame or adequate temperatures. That's the gist of it.