Info about DNA recovery at WTC?

[Sizzler]

The difference is that the DNA from the hotel was given to the examiner labeled as KNOWNS.

That is not possible.

 

[Reheat]

Why is anyone wasting time with this idiot? This is one of the more asinine threads I've seen in a while.

The answers have all been given in multiple posts, isn't that enough? (As if the answers were not obvious already, to a normal educated person.)

 

[aggle-rithm]

According to one source, exactly 10 DNA samples were given, with K codes, meaning "known" identities, but without actual names.

It was assumed these were the terrorists.

Nonetheless, the DNA evidence, anyway one looks at it, is NOT positive identification. Do you think they are John Does on their death certificates too?

So, what conclusions do you draw from this? That there were no hijackers? That government employees checked into hotels, drove rental cars, and took flights under assumed names on a suicide mission to make people THINK there were hijackers?

Or perhaps you are saying that DNA was planted? If so, then why the emphasis on not being able to POSITIVELY identify the DNA? If they just made up the evidence, wouldn't they be able to make up a positive ID?

Most likely, I'm afraid, you are simply trying to put up a smokescreen of doubt, saying that, since you are confused about how the FBI does their investigations, there should be a new investigation, one that is not so confusing. Is that it?

 

[DGM]

According to one source, exactly 10 DNA samples were given, with K codes, meaning "known" identities, but without actual names.

It was assumed these were the terrorists.

Nonetheless, the DNA evidence, anyway one looks at it, is NOT positive identification. Do you think they are John Does on their death certificates too?

The sources said
No names, just a K code, which is how the FBI designates “knowns,” or specimens it knows the origin of.

Do you know what the death certificate says? They know where the samples came from. That's all "known" means, your source even says this.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The difference is that the DNA from the hotel was given to the examiner labeled as KNOWNS.

That is not possible.

What is the official FBI definition of a "known"?

I ask because if you don't know, you can't say it isn't possible. Even if you do know, at most all you can say is that someone labeled it wrong.

 

[A W Smith]

According to one source, exactly 10 DNA samples were given, with K codes, meaning "known" identities, but without actual names.

No *** Sherlock, There were 10 thats TEN distinctly different DNA samples that matched those in the room and those in the car. They were KNOWN to be in that room and in that car. they KNOW the suspects rented that room and that car. They were assigned K codes because lacking next of kin they could not assign individual names to them

It was assumed these were the terrorists.

Nonetheless, the DNA evidence, anyway one looks at it, is NOT positive identification. Do you think they are John Does on their death certificates too?

there are no death certificates for the terrorists here in the US. But i am sure that it is not a problem for kin to collect "benefits" from OBL over there. Their kin never claimed their remains or volunteered DNA because they didn't care or have to. And without DNA from kin there will be no name match to individual remains. they have narrowed it down to ten KNOWN possibilities, worst case 19 KNOWNS.

 

[X]

Someone knowledgable check my thinking, please:

Suppose we grant that there were other people in the cars or hotel rooms at other times who left DA traces.
In order for those DNA traces to match remains from the site, the person who used the cars and hotel rooms would also have to have been a victim of the attacks.
They would have had to use the same cars and hotel rooms as the hijackers recently enough that their DNA would still have been testable (I don't know how long such traces last). This would also have left a paper trail.
They would have had to either be in the towers or in the aircraft at the time of the incident. Somebody also mentioned the luggage. The person then would have had to handle the hijackers luggage.
The identity person leaving these traces could also have been cross-checked through relatives of victims (determined via passenger manifests) if available.

You are proposing that the government faked it all, either by faking every single step of this process or falsifying the results on a vast scale.

If faked, the government had to have someone in the same cars, in the same hotel rooms, handling the same luggage, and dying in the same attack as the hijackers. That's a lot of work, and a lot of foreknowledge you are proposing.

If falsified, then you are proposing that the people investigating the attack knowingly and intentionally falsified some or all of the results.

If it sounds absurd, that's because it is.

 

[Sizzler]

Do you know what the death certificate says? They know where the samples came from. That's all "known" means, your source even says this.

No you are wrong here.

It means "known" identity. Again 10 were given all with K-codes, meaning, known identity.

Known identity infers that the DNA is known to belong to a certain individual. Identification by way of process of elimination, and that would be huge for a HOTEL ROOM, is not positive identification. Thus the DNA was from an unknown source.

 

[The Big Dog]

John Doe's were used as the names for the terrorists on their death certificates. Pentagon, Shanksville

Their DNA was identified by a process of elimination, yet, their true identity was not know enough to be identified.

Thus, process of elimination is not positive identification. The DNA, no matter how you look at it, is not from a known source.

OK. You seem convinced. Great job, nice thread, you really seem open to learning new things. Super!

 

[chillzero]

So, can I just check my understanding of this.

There are samples of DNA that have been identified as having been on the plane, in the hotel, and on a rental car.

It has been shown that a small group (2?) of individuals were physically present on the plane, in the hotel and in the rental car - due to records of guests, etc.

So, the DNA has been matched to belong to these two individuals. However, it cannot be determined which is which, without cooperation from the families. Therefore, ID cannot be firmly established as DNA sample A belongs to person X, and DNA sample B belongs to person Y. The most they can say is that DNA samples A and B belong to persons X and Y, but it cannot be narrowed down further.

Is that the sum of it?

 

[A W Smith]

This Thread fails

No you are wrong here.

It means "known" identity. Again 10 were given all with K-codes, meaning, known identity.

Known identity infers that the DNA is known to belong to a certain individual. Identification by way of process of elimination, and that would be huge for a HOTEL ROOM, is not positive identification. Thus the DNA was from an unknown source.

prove that the FBI uses your asserted named individual definition as "K" and not group or isolated DNA sample.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is that the sum of it?

You missed out the bit where this proves that there was a coverup by the FBI. Unfortunately, so did Sizzler.

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

No you are wrong here.

It means "known" identity. Again 10 were given all with K-codes, meaning, known identity.

Known identity infers that the DNA is known to belong to a certain individual. Identification by way of process of elimination, and that would be huge for a HOTEL ROOM, is not positive identification. Thus the DNA was from an unknown source.

...which means...?

 

[twinstead]

In sizzler's mind, 911 as an inside job is a given; no matter what that DNA evidence had to have been fixed, and the FBI just has to be covering it up.

What more proof do you need?

 

[aggle-rithm]

You missed out the bit where this proves that there was a coverup by the FBI. Unfortunately, so did Sizzler.

Dave

It's really very simple:

1. DNA evidence is faulty
2. ????
3. Inside job
4. ????
5. $$$$ for the NWO! Drinks are on me!!!!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Known identity infers that the DNA is known to belong to a certain individual. Identification by way of process of elimination, and that would be huge for a HOTEL ROOM, is not positive identification. Thus the DNA was from an unknown source.

You're really piling up the logical fallacies here. The DNA wasn't positively identified, therefore it's from an unknown source? False dilemma. The DNA is known to have come from a specific group of individuals to a reasonable degree of confidence, which is all that's ever possible; even DNA samples from family members for comparison could hypothetically be faked, so reasonable confidence is all you get. Therefore the K markings: "We know these were the group identified as the hijackers." A reasonable deduction to have made.

Oh, and try to find out what "infer" and "imply" mean, and which is which.

Dave

 

[chillzero]

You missed out the bit where this proves that there was a coverup by the FBI. Unfortunately, so did Sizzler.

Dave

Well, I'm trying to follow this a step at a time. So, my summary is correct?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, I'm trying to follow this a step at a time. So, my summary is correct?

Looks right to me.

What I noticed, by the way, is that Sizzler is now concentrating on something which has nothing to do with his own OP. This thread started out, as far as I can see, as an attempt to demonstrate from the location of the body parts identified that the hijackers weren't in the right part of the plane to have been hijacking it. However, as soon as he saw what looked like a minute anomaly in the labelling of the samples, he seized on it as proof of a coverup by the FBI, even though a few steps of logic are missing on the way.

Going back to the original point, one of the articles linked in this thread pointed out that the DNA samples recovered probably came from "the back of the plane", suggesting that those specific hijackers weren't where they should have been. That, to a conspiracy theorist, might well look suspicious; how could the hijackers be at the back of the plane? What it may well mean, though, is that the hijackers whose DNA was found were in the passeneger area, not the cockpit, and that the cockpit was smashed up so badly that no remains of the people in it were found. That would be perfectly reasonable, if one or two hijackers were in the cockpit flying the plane and the others were in the back keeping the passengers under control; we know from the phone messages that they did that on flight 93, so the same MO on flights 11 and 175 seems reasonable.

So there doesn't seem to be anything either in Sizzler's OP or in his abrupt change of direction to suggest any kind of anomaly. The only thing that's suggested is that the FBI's way of categorising DNA samples doesn't meet with his approval. I would submit that the FBI probably doesn't lose much sleep over that.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

Looks right to me.

What I noticed, by the way, is that Sizzler is now concentrating on something which has nothing to do with his own OP. This thread started out, as far as I can see, as an attempt to demonstrate from the location of the body parts identified that the hijackers weren't in the right part of the plane to have been hijacking it. However, as soon as he saw what looked like a minute anomaly in the labelling of the samples, he seized on it as proof of a coverup by the FBI, even though a few steps of logic are missing on the way.

Going back to the original point, one of the articles linked in this thread pointed out that the DNA samples recovered probably came from "the back of the plane", suggesting that those specific hijackers weren't where they should have been. That, to a conspiracy theorist, might well look suspicious; how could the hijackers be at the back of the plane? What it may well mean, though, is that the hijackers whose DNA was found were in the passenger area, not the cockpit, and that the cockpit was smashed up so badly that no remains of the people in it were found. That would be perfectly reasonable, if one or two hijackers were in the cockpit flying the plane and the others were in the back keeping the passengers under control; we know from the phone messages that they did that on flight 93, so the same MO on flights 11 and 175 seems reasonable.

So there doesn't seem to be anything either in Sizzler's OP or in his abrupt change of direction to suggest any kind of anomaly. The only thing that's suggested is that the FBI's way of categorising DNA samples doesn't meet with his approval. I would submit that the FBI probably doesn't lose much sleep over that.

Dave

actually thats Shaler's best guess as he assumes those in the cockpit of the plane would have been obliterated.

Shaler writes that he believes the terrorists identified were in the back of the planes - and not the monsters who plowed the jets into the towers.
"I still doubt the pilots have anything remaining to collect or analyze," he writes. "Likely, they were vaporized along with many of the innocent victims."

BUT if you look at the location of remains at the Pentagon in the building performance report image map you will find that the hijackers in the front of the plane were found mostly near the impact area while those remains of passengers thought to be in the rear of the plane were found clustered around the A-E drive exit hole. If you think about it. It makes sense. As momentum would drive the contents of the fuselage from rear to front in what is known as a secondary impact in auto crashes. much like a shotgun propels a shell down the barrel. Even if that shotgun was thrown and impacted against a wall.

 

[applecorped]

Sizzler, why don't you just come out and say what you really think? No highjackers DNA must mean there were no highjackers? No highjackers must mean Gubmint conspiracy!

Please join the US track and field team, your leaps in logic are outstanding. Perhaps you can specialize in the Long Jump to conclusions.