It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

DNA ID problems with aircrash victims?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Really, are you that clueless? They were continuting to develope new ways to identify the remains.


Please be adult enough to look at the dates on the DNA reports. Most of the bodies were identified BEFORE the new tests were ready.




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
They were continuting to develope new ways to identify the remains. Not all the remains had been identified. THAT is why they were attempting to develop new ways to identify the DNA that hadn't already been identified.


Yep, you are correct. They were able to identify almost all of the Pentagon victims, and many of the over location victims using standard testing/DNA testing. The new methods were mainly for those victims at the WTC location that has very little material to test (due to crushing/burned/exposure).

All in all, a remarkable job by the forensic experts that did the testing!



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron Yep, you are correct. They were able to identify almost all of the Pentagon victims, and many of the over location victims using standard testing/DNA testing. !


Then why did the head of DNA testing ask NIST to do new tests if they could identify most of the victims using standard testing?



Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.



[edit on 26-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 26-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then why did the head of DNA testing ask NIST to do new tests if they could identify most of the victims using standard testing?

It appears your quote is referring to DNA at the WTC site, which underwent a significant amount more trauma than the DNA at The Pentagon.

As you might imagine, traditional DNA techniques are not developed with identifying people after a skyscraper collapse. I see nothing suspicious in the requirement for more rigorous testing methods?



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
It appears your quote is referring to DNA at the WTC site, which underwent a significant amount more trauma than the DNA at The Pentagon.


So your saying their was no fire or collpase at the Pentagon?

If the fire was hot enouh to destroy the plane it would have aslo destroyed the DNA.



[edit on 26-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Double Post

[edit on 26-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If the fire was hot enouh to destroy the plane it would have aslo destroyed the DNA.


Can you cite for this? House fires regularly exceed the melting point of aluminium but DNA remains. Flesh tends to char rather than to melt.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Then why did the head of DNA testing ask NIST to do new tests if they could identify most of the victims using standard testing?


Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.


Try reading what you you put in bold.

THATS why they wanted to create better testing.


[edit on 26-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Yep, you are right. For the samples that could not be identified by conventional means, or current DNA testing processes, they needed to try and find new methods to test them.

Some people would make you think that any identification (thru conventional means or DNA) is not valid, because of this new method. If that was the case, then every single murder trial that used DNA testing would need to be redone, wouldnt it?



[edit on 26-8-2008 by gavron]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Can you cite for this? House fires regularly exceed the melting point of aluminium but DNA remains. Flesh tends to char rather than to melt.


But we are not talking about a house fire are we?

We are talking about a fire hot enough to destroy what was left of the plane (according to the official story).

So if the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane it would been hot enough to destroy the DNA. Unless your saying the official story is wrong?

[edit on 27-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
THATS why they wanted to create better testing.


So you agree then then that they needed the new testing because most of the DNA could not be tested by the standard tests?

Then how do you explan the fact that most of the victims were identified BEFORE the new testing came out?




[edit on 27-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But we are not talking about a house fire are we?

We are talking about a fire hot enough to destroy what was left of the plane (according to the official story).


So, it wasnt a typical office fire then? You seem to state it was just a typical office fire in countless threads.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
So, it wasnt a typical office fire then? You seem to state it was just a typical office fire in countless threads.


Please try reading and comprehending my post. Those posts i was talking about the towers not the Pentagon.

You just keep proving my points about beleivers.

Now i will make this as simple as i can since i can see your having problems reading information.

Now AT THE PENTAGON if the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane then it would have also made the DNA not testable for DNA testing in 2001. Which was why NIST was asked to come up with new testing.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Now AT THE PENTAGON if the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane then it would have also made the DNA not testable for DNA testing in 2001. Which was why NIST was asked to come up with new testing.

Why? Flesh contains a lot of water, and Aluminium will melt at a little over 600C. This is very typical fire temperatures. I suspect the WTC quote was referring more to physical trauma than to fire damage.

Perhaps you could contact the team involved and ask them, they should have published something about a new technique so a publication search might be fruitful.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Why? Flesh contains a lot of water, and Aluminium will melt at a little over 600C. This is very typical fire temperatures. I suspect the WTC quote was referring more to physical trauma than to fire damage.


Well even with basic research you will find 1 main point. HEAT DESTROYS DNA.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well even with basic research you will find 1 main point. HEAT DESTROYS DNA.


I'm sure it does if it's hot enough and long enough, but your point was that aluminium melting must equal no DNA. You have presented no evidence to support this, and considering DNA was recovered from all 3 sites on 911, seems utterly unsupported anyway.

I'm really not going to argue this with you, you've already demonstrated that once you claim something, you will simply repeat it endlessly.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


exponent,

You are correct. There are those that think the fires inside the building were likea kiln or something, and cremated everything to a fine dust. They ignore evidence like the photos of some of the victims, or portions of victims.

The forensics teams at the scene were able to identify all but 5 of the victims, and did it in a realtively short time, if I remember correct. They had a large team at their disposal, and good facilities.

How bringing up these off conspiracy theories help victims families, I have no idea...



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well even with basic research you will find 1 main point. HEAT DESTROYS DNA.


Factor in thickness, temperature, time, location in relation to the heat source and it's not as simple and absolute as you'd like to believe. The human 'parts' weren't totally destroyed, well not all because they were visibly identifiable for the unfortunate individuals charged with the reponsibility of collecting them.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent You have presented no evidence to support this, and considering DNA was recovered from all 3 sites on 911, seems utterly unsupported anyway.
.


DDDAAAHHH i never said DNA was not recovered did i?

I stated it would not be testable by normal DNA testing in 2001.

Thats why new tests were asked for.


[edit on 28-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
They ignore evidence like the photos of some of the victims, or portions of victims


So then your saying the offical story is wrong about fire destroying the plane? So please explain to us what happened to the plane.

Please show evidence that the bodies in those photos still had good enough DNA, that could be tested back in 2001. Also were those bodies from the plane or workers in the building?



[edit on 28-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join