Am i being unfair to you when i believe that your question on this thread is not too different from your question on the other thread about the mathematical impossibility of the Theravadin model of the universe?
What are the similarities between the two? You take a certain aspect/notion of the teachings (Anatta), then you reduce it to your own definition by negating other possible interpretations (ontology), then you make wrong conclusions (If no one is suffering, why is it suffering?).
An ontological approach to Anatta is one possibility, but not the only possibility. Anatta can be equally understood as a driver of action (detachment), or an interpretation of how things are, or simply, introducing the possibility of a different way of being in the world where there is no suffering.
Reducing Anatta to ontology serves the purpose of highlighting a contradiction when there is none. An ontological interpretation of Anatta implies that the meaning of Anatta takes effect whether the individual practitioner knows it directly or does not know it directly, akin to saying that the moon exists whether we see it or we don't. If Anatta is an ontological reality, according to the context of your question, then differentiating between those who know it and those who don't is not valid. Both should not suffer, therefore, Anatta is proven wrong according to the context of your question.
Unless you begin to analyze the hidden assumptions in your questions and see them for what they are (mere assumptions which are not necessary) it is very likely to continue this way.
All in my opinion.