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

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Not at all. THousands of tons of rubble collapsing on people and a fire that cooked for months afterward is a very logical reason why a thousand people are still not identified/accounted for

There is nothing logical about it actually. It is an empirically based hypothesis and not likely a true statement of fact at all in that it leaves out the part played by explosives in creating the collapse and by thermite in creating molten steel.

reply to post by waypastvne


Thank you for your reply and explanation of how to get to the original picture. The picture you provided was actually more informative, in that it showed paperwork/possessions of one of the travelers in the plane, which suggests some such materials besides one hijacker's passport survived.

As for the original picture, is the passport supposed to be the small, blue book at the top? In any case, that picture really doesn't prove anything. It doesn't show whose passport it is -- if it is even one -- and there is no apparent provenance for the picture besides. Yes, it is in the NIST archive, but there is no picture caption, nor any verification of where/when and by whom this picture was taken.

Again, the picture you provided is the most compelling evidence, which I have seen, that other onboard material survived, corroborating that it was possible for a passport to survive. But even with this, one has to take on faith what the picture caption says regarding it. Given the way the entire crime scene was handled, i.e. not like a crime scene at all, I have my doubts about any evidence "collected" in the debris zone, particularly as there was only about an hour to collect stuff before the collapse, and I really doubt people were looking at the ground and collecting debris while those towers were burning and things and people were falling out of them.

reply to post by richierich


Mini-nukes, huh? You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. If there were mini-nukes involved in the supposed demolition of the WTC (or Pentagon), they would have left radioactive signatures. No one has suggested that, as far as I know.

Originally posted by samkent

No you are saying that the Bush admin and dozens/hundreds of other people had the same mentality to allow them to slaughter thousands of innocent people with no remorse.
Not realistic. Especially when you have no proof.

Not realistic? What do you call the invasions of Iraq based on false premises, as well as the Bush administration's full knowledge that many people it put and continued to confine in Gitmo were innocent? And how about Dick Cheney's secret energy task force that ok'd fracking, which jeopardizes many Americans' drinking water, i.e. their health as well. Seems like plenty of circumstantial evidence that the Bush administration was quite happy to go ahead with a psychopathic plan involving the killing of many innocent Americans (and others) in order to gain justification for a couple of illegal wars of aggression that would make their business associates rich and which would allow for the additional curtailing of rights of US citizens and excuses for making much more information about the government and dangerous industries kept secret under the excuse of national security.

The US government has kept many secrets. It kept the Manhattan project secret from Americans until it was announced. It kept many of its illegal and unethical medical experiments secret until decades later (look up MK-Ultra as one such example), and it has kept many nuclear accidents secret. In fact it also kept Soviet nuclear accidents secret in order to avoid negative public opinion in the US regarding the nuclear industry.

Also look up Operation North Woods, a planned false-flag operation by the CIA and military that would provide an excuse to invade Cuba. The military and the CIA were gung-ho for it, but JFK shut it down -- and look where that got him.

It is very simple what happened to the missing people: Huge blasts of fission/fusion bombs, mini-nukes, caused the majority of the contents and quite a lot of the interior supports to be melted, blasted and shredded into tiny shards. The crowd that tries in vain to support the nonsense that gravity and office fires were responsible for the energy needed to accomplish this massive destruction cannot and never will be able to explain away the utter damage done. When you find tiny shards of people blown onto roof tops fairly far from the WTC sites that gives you the answer; ONLY extreme heat and intense blast capability could account for what is seen..nukes fit the bill perfectly, from the damage to the dustification of the concrete and the EMP effects seen and felt.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by richierich

 

Mini-nukes, huh? You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. If there were mini-nukes involved in the supposed demolition of the WTC (or Pentagon), they would have left radioactive signatures. No one has suggested that, as far as I know.

As far as you know...thats not very far. All you have to do is read the elevated levels of the radioactive elements found after the blast..very available, and you will see that you need more research before answering. I am NOt going to do it for you..this time you look up the evidence...it is there.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Not at all. THousands of tons of rubble collapsing on people and a fire that cooked for months afterward is a very logical reason why a thousand people are still not identified/accounted for

There is nothing logical about it actually. It is an empirically based hypothesis and not likely a true statement of fact at all in that it leaves out the part played by explosives in creating the collapse and by thermite in creating molten steel.

edit on 6-4-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

And both those theories remain theories...not proven by any stretch.

reply to post by richierich

It is very simple what happened to the missing people: Huge blasts of fission/fusion bombs, mini-nukes, caused the majority of the contents and quite a lot of the interior supports to be melted, blasted and shredded into tiny shards.

OK lets run with this mini nukes for a few seconds.
You place one near the core on the floor that the plane is supposed to hit.

Is it a certainty that the plane will hit that exact floor? Nope

If the nuke is strong enough to melt the beams and create shards shouldn't it be strong enough to blow out all the windows?

Did it take only one nuke on the impact floor to start the collapse and gravity chewed the rest of the way down?
If so why use a nuke in the first place?
If not, did they place nukes on the floors above the impact point too? How do you time all of these nukes without leaving det cord behind? Don't say you are going to trust dozens of nukes to radio det. Even the demo crew wouldn't trust their lives to dozens of radio nukes.

The nukes idea brings more risk of failure to a plan than they are worth.

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by Kharron
Thermite fueled fires perhaps? Lots of bodies were probably incinerated.

The WTC burned FOR MONTHS. Forgotten already? Now...some people might take a few brain cells and add 1+1 together. With happens to bodies which are in a pile of rubble that burns for MONTHS?

So you are saying that all bodies ended up below the rubble?! That is not realistic.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by randyvs

 

Eleven hundred bodies ground to dust yet a passport lands on the sidewalk unscathed ? Excuses for a delusion that is the OS.

Being mostly made from paper it was blown clear during the blast. Just like all that other paper we saw raining down.

Oh dear, and this is why the OS is so laughable! Some of the reasons given for impossible events that day are so funny! Keep them coming, I love to read debunker's/OS supporters explanations for unprecedented bizarre events that happened on 9/11!

1001 excuses for impossible events!

Originally posted by Another_Nut

Originally posted by samkent

Please tell me these things. I will believe you.

A United Airlines Milage Plus card.
A Foam seat cushion.
Life Jackets.
Airliner Itinerary sheet
A Wallet
ATM Bank card
A Letter (mail)
A business card - Day Planner - Wedding band - Address book - Visa Check card - Check Book (same Person)

Here and Here

AS has been said. Why plant this stuff? It's easier and safer (conspiracy wise) just to say everything burned up.

All that but no black boxes?
just silly

The reason all that paper survived but black boxes and people didn't is because whatever was working on the iron in the steel/people/chairs/black boxes/filing cabinets etc didn't affect the wood pulp.

Btw my friends dad was a firefighters who died on 9/11. I will only say that after many years they finally came clean that the remains that were buried many not have been his fathers after fragments with DNA were found. Fragments.

if u thinks planes collapsed those buildings then u are wrong

If u think explosives brought them low u are incorrect.

Neither can describe what we saw on 9/11. So what did it is still unknown.

When you exclude the impossible. What ever is left,however inprobable, must be the truth.

Yes, exactly, no black boxes, which are designed to survive high impact crashes. So convenient that they did not survive, but passports and bank cards did!

This fact highlights how absurd the OS is! Many other absurd facts about 9/11, maybe some gullible folk will buy this fabrication, but many of us do not!

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

Last time I read, the Pentagon was hardened for nuke attacks. Here's a video link to a 'dead horse.'

You read wrong.

Yep, I have heard this same statement on news reports too. Where did the news channels get their info from?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by richierich

 

It is very simple what happened to the missing people: Huge blasts of fission/fusion bombs, mini-nukes, caused the majority of the contents and quite a lot of the interior supports to be melted, blasted and shredded into tiny shards.

OK lets run with this mini nukes for a few seconds.
You place one near the core on the floor that the plane is supposed to hit.

Is it a certainty that the plane will hit that exact floor? Nope

If the nuke is strong enough to melt the beams and create shards shouldn't it be strong enough to blow out all the windows?

Did it take only one nuke on the impact floor to start the collapse and gravity chewed the rest of the way down?
If so why use a nuke in the first place?
If not, did they place nukes on the floors above the impact point too? How do you time all of these nukes without leaving det cord behind? Don't say you are going to trust dozens of nukes to radio det. Even the demo crew wouldn't trust their lives to dozens of radio nukes.

The nukes idea brings more risk of failure to a plan than they are worth.

No nuke was used on upper floors, but possiblly below the building itself. Any explosions on the upper floors were conventional, and were there to aid with the illusion of a plane bringing down a building.

A nuke is really the only possible type of explosive that could have brought the building down in the way it did.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
And both those theories remain theories...not proven by any stretch.

I think controlled demolition is proven beyond doubt. The symmetry of the collapse, the rate of the collapse at near free fall speed, residues of thermite, pyroclastic flows of dust, and no precedent of a postulated "uncontrolled collapse" of similar buildings, are proof enough for me. But that's me.

Some people will never believe 9/11 was an inside job, or they will never acknowledge believing it. They can't handle the truth. Their pride can't handle it.

I used to have an uncle who idolized the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover. Idolized. He could never accept criticisms of the man or the institution.

Most Americans will never accept that they gave the world two terms of war criminals that murdered hundreds of thousands of people, among them, allegedly, nearly 3000 people in New York.

The way America will handle this issue and is trying to handle the issue is by papering it over. Pretending it didn't happen the way it happened and moving on. Even now, the great "ship of state" of the American republic is altering course in foreign policy. Now we are going to be treated to a "Pacific Pivot".

Not the least of the reasons for this is to paper over America's recent history in the minds of citizen's keeping stock, and moving on to something else. That's the way people deal with unpleasant facts, most people.

There will be no German-style self re-assessment for America although one is badly needed. Americans, unlike the defeated of WW2, can continue their delusional posturing in the world for the foreseeable future.

What I'm saying is that as far as 9/11 goes, the collapse of the WTC buildings, "proof" is not the real issue. The real issue is psychology. Psychology and politics.

It's like religion. Many people act on faith, not reason. When reason enters the discussion of 9/11, there is overwhelming reason to believe that it was an inside job. The reasonable mind comes to that conclusion through processes of deduction and induction.

Some people think that it is reasonable to believe that over a thousand bodies disappeared at the WTC, simply through the destructive processes at work that day, however these processes were set in motion and kept in motion. They may be right. In this thread all I'm saying is that I'm aware that some people are wondering, for reasons related to documentation, whether some or all of those missing might actually be "simulated victims".

Simulations are, after all, an integral part of the events of the day. There were numerous government acknowleged simulations and drills.

It is entirely possible that simulated victims were a part of those drills.

I just want to mention that in continuing to peruse the CDC figures on death in America in 2001, I did find a reference (bolded) to 9/11 in one of their worksheets:

WORK TABLE 306. DEATHS FROM SELECTED CAUSES BY AGE GROUPS AND DATE OF DEATH: UNITED STATES, 2001 PAGE 1 PLATE 1

www.cdc.gov...

SEPTEMBER--189,107 S6,103 S6,233 M5,994 T6,226 W5,979 T5,978 F6,206 S6,194 S6,146 M6,076 T9,005 W6,138 T6,072 F6,194 S6,232

I just want to acknowledge this numerical reflection of 9/11 in the CDC's tabulations of deaths, with the caveat that it would be very easy to fudge this statistic by simply inflating the day's totals for September 11 by 3000 or so, in the tabulations.

For the number to be genuine it would have to be derived from other tabulations in their studies and to verify that, one would have to examine the numbers in great detail. On the face of it, it seems certain that the number was simply given to them, since we know that they could never have verified the existence of people for whom remains have never been identified or even, possibly, discovered.

To be certain that the 9/11 "spike" in deaths was actually reflected elsewhere in CDC figures requires much more study.

For me the CDC's figures, including the one cited above, do not rule out the possibility of simulated victims of 9/11, especially considering the absence of so many names from the Social Security Death Index.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

Last time I read, the Pentagon was hardened for nuke attacks. Here's a video link to a 'dead horse.'

You read wrong.

Yep, I have heard this same statement on news reports too. Where did the news channels get their info from?

Where do these myths originate from? Nuclear hardened - Really? It is the same with people believing that the Pentagon also had a ring of missile air defences! The Pentagon was never designed to survive a nuclear blast. It is simply a low rise office building built in the 1940s. After the Oklahoma City bombing some anti-terror strengthening was put in place such as blast proof windows and kevlar linings.

www.dbia.org...

reply to post by DeeKlassified

No nuke was used on upper floors, but possiblly below the building itself. Any explosions on the upper floors were conventional, and were there to aid with the illusion of a plane bringing down a building.

A nuke is really the only possible type of explosive that could have brought the building down in the way it did.

So please explain how a nuke in the basement would bring the buildings down from the point(s) of impact?

One of the key points related to possible nuclear components in play on 9/11 is the USGS study of the dust that accumulated in New York as a result of the destruction of the WTC.

I have a thread on this and have posted in other threads on this subject. I don't want to go into it in detail here, but through my own very small efforts of research I concluded that there is too much uranium in the dust of the WTC. People interested in how I came to this conclusion should check out a post of mine on the following linked page. It is the post with the forms and tables in it. It is not overly technical and makes interesting reading (I hope).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The real tell tale piece of information that would clinch speculations about a nuclear component to 9/11 is data held by the USGS that was never released in their publications on the WTC dust (to my knowledge). The information I'm talking about is the list of the exact nuclides of uranium discovered in the dust.

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.

There is a guy from the UK who has a theory of the "meltdown" of a mini-nuclear reactor in the basement of the building. He says that heavy metals found in the WTC dust exist in ratios among themselves consistent with the ratios of such elements that occur as a result of the process of nuclear fission.

It is an interesting subject. If one reads the entire thread linked earlier in this post, one gets a good feel for a lot of the issues attendant upon discussions of "nukes" and 9/11.

I considered doing a thread on the Brit with the nuke theory, but at the time the theory just seemed too outrageous to swallow. I don't think, for example, the theorist gave an explanation of the process of "clean up" which would be required, post-meltdown. That's a serious omission.

This guy says that he suffered some consequences for going public with his studies. The nuke/depleted uranium speculation about 9/11 is one of its hottest hot potatoes.

reply to post by ipsedixit


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"?

reply to post by NavyDoc



Got to love the ignorance on this subject.....

Yes it is logical, and based on similar situations.

Eg..... CTV building ...... en.wikipedia.org...


It was only 6 stories high. The fire did not burn for very long, and body recovery was fast.

4 victims where never identified. Despite unlimited resources.


I have been doing this kind of work for 35 years, and only a small amount of total body mass is sometimes recovered.



Literally ashes to ashes.