It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

# NYC asks: What happened to the 1,116 missing 9/11 victims?

page: 7
39
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Bedlam

Let me get this straight - you think a shaped charge with a "DU liner" can produce a nuclear reaction?

That's your conjecture on how you make "mini nukes"?

In a word, no.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:43 PM

4 victims where never identified. Despite unlimited resources.

In the disaster you cite, of 115 victims only 4 were never identified. That amounts to .034% of the total number of victims.

If you multiply .034% times 2900 victims that should give the number of unidentified victims as 97 victims (rounded off) at the WTC.

In the case of the world trade center with over 1100 victims unaccounted for, you have a percentage of unaccounted victims of roughly .379% which is more than 10 times the percentage of unaccounted for victims in the example you cite.

It is hard to see how a simple collapse with a relatively small number of office fires could produce such a disparity, unless of course one accepts as a key difference between the two cases, the use of explosives at the WTC. Then the disparity makes some sense.

edit on 7-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 01:42 PM

You don't see 6 stories as compared to 110 representing a considerable disparity ?

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:17 PM

110 stories is 18 times as many stories as 6 stories.

The percentage of unaccounted for victims in case of the WTC is 10 times that of the New Zealand case, so the number of floors doesn't seem to yield a direct correlation between number of floors and unaccounted for victims.

If the number of floors alone were a factor, then there should be a direct correlation between the numbers of floors and numbers of unaccounted for victims. We should have (as a percentage) almost twice as many unaccounted for victims in the WTC case.

It might be argued that a larger number of floors actually has an inverse relationship with the number of unaccounted for victims because over a longer fall victims might well be scattered away from the sublevels of the buildings, where the fires burned for weeks, by the time the collapse ended.

However, there are so many indications that the collapses of the WTC towers were controlled demolitions, that I can't really see the utility of a discussion along these lines.

edit on 7-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by ipsedixit
In a word, no.

The presence of certain nuclides will indicate whether nuclear fission occurred on 9/11 or whether possibly, as I believe to be the case, shaped charges with so-called "liners" made of depleted uranium were used in the demolitions.

Ah, as you linked the question of fission to the supposed shaped charges here, I misconstrued your statement. However, using DU 'carrots' won't change their nuclide ratios, you'll just get about the same ratios as raw uranium, with less U235.

I don't buy the entire 'mini nuke' argument, for oh so many reasons. But the lack of radioactivity and the fact the building fell down instead of blowing outwards would be a nice start, in addition to the noted lack of very small nuclear weapons to start with.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The presence of certain nuclides will indicate whether nuclear fission occurred on 9/11 or whether possibly, as I believe to be the case, shaped charges with so-called "liners" made of depleted uranium were used in the demolitions.

Ah, as you linked the question of fission to the supposed shaped charges here, I misconstrued your statement. However, using DU 'carrots' won't change their nuclide ratios, you'll just get about the same ratios as raw uranium, with less U235.

I'm certainly no expert in this field but in my research in the thread I had linked to earlier, I discovered the fact that U236 occurs as an impurity in the DU production process. The presence of U236 in the WTC dust would be a signature of nuclear fission, not on site on 9/11, but back in the production sequence of depleted uranium.

The USGS has never, to my knowledge, released details of what nuclides of uranium were found in the WTC dust. There is only one reason for them not to do so. The presence of products of fission on the site would be a slam dunk indication that 9/11 was an inside job.

I don't buy the entire 'mini nuke' argument, for oh so many reasons.

I don't either and won't unless given very persuasive evidence.

I guess you haven't read the complete thread I linked to earlier. Radioactivity was detected on the site. This is a complex discussion that is pursued in the other thread. I'm not going to go into it all over again. Suffice it to say they weren't looking for alpha emitters, like those that accompany the use of DU munitions. They did acknowledge detecting radioactive tritium. As I said, this is a complex discussion even on the ATS (amateur journalistic) level. If you want to know my take on it, please read the thread linked in this post.

and the fact the building fell down instead of blowing outwards would be a nice start, in addition to the noted lack of very small nuclear weapons to start with.

Very small nuclear weapons exist and did in 2001. This is covered in the thread I mentioned.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

here is a picture of the W-54 nuclear warhead.

en.wikipedia.org...

There were four distinct models of the basic W54 design used, each with different yield, but the same basic design.

edit on 7-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:08 PM

Originally posted by ipsedixit

110 stories is 18 times as many stories as 6 stories.

The percentage of unaccounted for victims in case of the WTC is 10 times that of the New Zealand case, so the number of floors doesn't seem to yield a direct correlation between number of floors and unaccounted for victims.

If the number of floors alone were a factor, then there should be a direct correlation between the numbers of floors and numbers of unaccounted for victims. We should have (as a percentage) almost twice as many unaccounted for victims in the WTC case.

It might be argued that a larger number of floors actually has an inverse relationship with the number of unaccounted for victims because over a longer fall victims might well be scattered away from the sublevels of the buildings, where the fires burned for weeks, by the time the collapse ended.

However, there are so many indications that the collapses of the WTC towers were controlled demolitions, that I can't really see the utility of a discussion along these lines.

Which are? If somebody wanted to control the demolitions then what's up with the planes and the hijackers?

It's pointless.

If you were Darth Cheney you'd blow up the buildings (and NOT the Pentagon!) and blame it on Saddam's secret service. No planes.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 12:23 AM
I thought this topic was about how so many people could simply "disappear" not if the building were professionally pulled ( which I think was the case for multiple reasons )

My point was simple.....

With that amount of heat ( be it from fuel or other artificial compounds, charges etc... ) and pressure and rate of decomposition that would have followed. I would have expected a third to never be recovered.

If anyone with any actual experience in this field would like to contradict me. Then lets go.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 02:15 AM

In the middle of a work storm keeping california safe for democracy will come back to this in a couple of days. The W54 you posted we had in backpack form in our WSA.

However, had you cracked that off in the Twin Towers, you'd have blown chunks all over Manhattan.

There was a howitzer shell with a topology changer design that was smaller but that one too would have blown the facade off the building and irradiated everyone in the area.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:22 AM

If anyone with any actual experience in this field would like to contradict me. Then lets go.

This is the argument from authority, widely used in religions, particularly the religion of the "official story" of 9/11. It's a discussion ender in Islam, for example, and is meant to be. The Bush administration, thoroughly imbued with authoritarianism adopted this approach to criminal investigation of 9/11. "Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the events of September 11th, . . ."

Discussing the topic on the level that you want to discuss it, focussing narrowly on what your personal experience of other situations tells you about this one, is not possible for people who don't share your experience or your narrow focus.

Your argument amounts to "I know better and that's the way it is."

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Bedlam

In the middle of a work storm keeping california safe for democracy will come back to this in a couple of days. The W54 you posted we had in backpack form in our WSA.

And you just forgot about it a couple of posts ago when you said that there was a lack of small nukes? You're not some kind of dishonest person are you? Backpacking a nuclear explosive device is not the sort of thing most people would just forget about.

However, had you cracked that off in the Twin Towers, you'd have blown chunks all over Manhattan.

No argument here. The nuke theory is something that is probably beyond the competence of most people on ATS. The British guy I referred to earlier was talking about the deliberate meltdown of a small nuclear reactor in the sub-basement of the WTC. If I can find a link to his stuff, I'll put it in this thread.

I can't really discuss his theory. It depends heavily on analysis of the WTC dust and in ratios of heavy metals in the dust which he says are associated with nuclear fission. Not just the presence of heavy metals but the ratios, each to the other, in which they are present. He contends that there are tell-tale signs of fission.

There was a howitzer shell with a topology changer design that was smaller but that one too would have blown the facade off the building and irradiated everyone in the area.

"Topology changer" design. Cute.

In the thread I linked to above, there is some talk about nuclear bombs. Personally, I don't believe any such weapon of any description was used.

Good luck with California! Democracy needs all the help it can get.
edit on 8-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:11 AM
This links to a page discussing the use of mini-nukes to bring down the WTC towers. I haven't done the research to comment meaningfully on it.

www.knowthelies.com...

The next link is to the website of a person who believes that there were controlled meltdowns of small nuclear reactors under the WTC towers.

Scroll to the bottom of the page for a link to an 88 page .pdf-style report on this subject. Again, I don't endorse or dismiss this idea but the report makes compelling reading.

www.nucleardemolition.com...

USGS studies of the WTC dust are key to studying the possiblity of a nuclear event on 9/11.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:17 AM

Originally posted by mbkennel
Which are? If somebody wanted to control the demolitions then what's up with the planes and the hijackers?

It's pointless.

That's the political dimension.

If you were Darth Cheney you'd blow up the buildings (and NOT the Pentagon!) and blame it on Saddam's secret service. No planes.

If I were Darth Cheney, I'd be seeking to redeem a wasted life by undoing some of the damage I had done to the republic of the United States of America. But that's me.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:39 AM
We called it a night three hours early, so I've got a few minutes to address this...

Originally posted by ipsedixit
And you just forgot about it a couple of posts ago when you said that there was a lack of small nukes? You're not some kind of dishonest person are you? Backpacking a nuclear explosive device is not the sort of thing most people would just forget about.

I think the problem is that you and I are not on the same page with "small".

A 1kT weapon is not "small" when you're talking about detonating it inside a building. 50 tons is about the smallest fielded weapon they've made, which is the W48 howitzer shell I was talking about. A 50 ton weapon in the basement would still obliterate the bottom floors in a blowout. It only takes 5-7 psi of overpressure to eradicate the building structure.

No argument here. The nuke theory is something that is probably beyond the competence of most people on ATS. The British guy I referred to earlier was talking about the deliberate meltdown of a small nuclear reactor in the sub-basement of the WTC. If I can find a link to his stuff, I'll put it in this thread.

A meltdown of a reactor would not have caused an explosion. It also would have been even slower and sloppier than the 'thermite theory' which is also atrocious. It sort of sidesteps the obvious, which is a 'reactor meltdown' would have left horribly radioactive residue of the sort you couldn't mistake, in addition to cesium-137, iodine-131 and xenon isotopes that would have been characteristic of a meltdown.

BTW, you can't just say "if you find cesium it must be a meltdown", it has to be cesium-137. Your guy isn't claiming that, just that cesium was present. That's a bit misleading. The radioactive gases would have been wafting around the island in a very unmistakable fashion. Not to mention anyone that was in or near the building would have been fried, and even to this day you wouldn't have been able to get close. See also: Fukushima.

There was a howitzer shell with a topology changer design that was smaller but that one too would have blown the facade off the building and irradiated everyone in the area.

"Topology changer" design. Cute.

The W48 IS a topology changer design. It's not "cute", it's how the thing works. It's one of those classic designs you're taught about that we just don't use, which is why the W48 was never really deployed - it doesn't meet the design safety minimums that DOE/NNSA requires. For one, they're prone to fratricide, since they have to be designed to be close to critical just sitting there.

Topo weapons don't compress the pit, they alter the topology. An obround shape has a higher critical mass than a sphere. An unreflected mass has a higher critical mass than one with a reflector. So what you do in a topology changer is, you start off with a shape that's got a higher critical mass, and you alter it into one that's got a lower one, leaving it supercritical. In the case of the W48 (and most other designs of this type) you compress an obround mass into a spherical one, while shoving it into a reflector. It's sloppy and wasteful of fissile mass because the supercriticality factor is low.
edit on 8-4-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:43 AM

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This links to a page discussing the use of mini-nukes to bring down the WTC towers. I haven't done the research to comment meaningfully on it.

Having given this thing a quick once-over, he's not telling you that these are common elements that don't necessarily come from reactors.

Also, his conjecture seems to depend on putting several reactors in the basement and melting them all down in some manner that caused the building to collapse from the top, while somehow sidestepping the huge amount of lethally radioactive residue that somehow doesn't seem to have been in the basement.

I see it as a frantic attempt to explain the supposed melted metal in the basement, but it doesn't seem very convincing.

BTW, I am sure there were alpha emitters and tritium in the building. We call them "smoke detectors" and "exit signs".
edit on 8-4-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:44 AM

If I were Darth Cheney, I'd be seeking to redeem a wasted life by undoing some of the damage I had done to the republic of the United States of America. But that's me.

Do you really think he still had money and power on his mind?

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:20 AM
Can we come back to the topic please?

POXUSA asks: The question on everyone's minds should be " What happened to the 3,000 or so missing 9/11 victims ?" Why? Because they weren't in the Twin Towers either before, during, or after their destruction. Where were they then? Answer: they weren't anywhere because they didn't exist. The Towers were empty of people and most of their contents. How can it be, one might ask, that I could make such an outrageously disrespectful claim as that? Eleven years of solid research and the application of the principle of common sense is how.

edit on 8-4-2013 by POXUSA because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:30 AM

www.abovetopsecret.com...

. . . and that they also read the two webpages I linked, above. After having done that read bedlam's responses to my posts. Make up your minds for yourselves.

There is no doubt that there are discussion points in this topic, but bedlam's posts haven't convinced me that he is not a disingenuous poster.

As far as "topology changer" goes, thankyou bedlam for that instruction. I appreciate it.

edit on 8-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:32 AM

I agree we should stay on topic. The way the towers came down is related somewhat to the topic but as you point out there are other much more pertinent reasons to suspect that many victims were actually "vicsims".

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:38 AM

Originally posted by ipsedixit
There is no doubt that there are discussion points in this topic, but bedlam's posts haven't convinced me that he is not a disingenuous poster.

And while reading the dreck that ipsedixit linked to, remember Chernobyl and Fukushima, and consider several reactors melting down in the basement.

Ask yourself how that could be mistaken for anything else, and how you'd get that out of there.

Ask how something detectable from across the Pacific wasn't detectable in Manhattan, or how they had to entomb Chernobyl (not too successfully) and want to do the same to Fukushima, if they can ever get it cool enough to be entombed. Only somehow, in this case they melted several reactors down in one spot but just scooped it up and put the debris on a truck, and it's not radioactive there. And wasn't then either. Wow, that's a really interesting meltdown. Of several reactors.

Then ask 'why does this even make sense', what possible use would it be to melt down several reactors in a basement? How does this contribute to what you see happening at the towers? How do you even get several reactors to PUT in a basement, and how could you possibly miss that?

The entire idea is just wrong. I wasn't sure that anyone could come up with something more nuts than Judy Woods, but this is right up there.

You don't need fictitious reactors to explain the lack of bodies. They ended up in the basement and roasted slowly over a long period of time, then decomposed for a few months. By the time the bottom was dug out, there was nothing left but bone shards mixed in with tons of concrete and metal trash.
edit on 8-4-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

new topics

39