Info about DNA recovery at WTC?

[bonavada]

What if the terrorists traveled in pairs?

What if the terrorist hired a prostitute, or had a friend stay over.

What if another person rented the same car and the same hotel room.

If Auntie > Bollocks Then
Uncle
Else
BS
End

BV

 

[Dave Rogers]

So most of you are attempting the following:

DNA was found in a rental car known to be rented by a suspected terrorist. The same DNA was found in a hotel room rented by a suspected terrorist.

Therefore, the DNA is most likely the terrorists.

Well, I am sorry to say but this is incorrect.

No, it isn't. "Most likely" is correct. "Absolutely certain" is incorrect.

What if the terrorists traveled in pairs?

Then DNA from both terrorists would have been found. There were ten of them. This identifies two. Where's the problem?

What if the terrorist hired a prostitute, or had a friend stay over.

Then there would be more than ten sets of DNA profiles identified. Since there weren't, we know this didn't happen.

What if another person rented the same car and the same hotel room.

Then they would have left records which could be checked. People renting cars tend to leave paper trails with the car rental company. This can be checked. People renting hotel rooms sign the register. This can be checked. Carry out the process of elimination, and if all goes well the FBI ends up with only ten profiles, which are known with reasonable certainty to be those of the ten individuals who signed their names on the registers and used their credit cards to pay for the car rentals.

Sizzler, you seem to believe that people go through life without leaving any records. It's simply not true, and it's one of the many things conspiracy theorists whinge about. It's actually very simple: take samples from the rooms and the cars, find out the number of different DNA profiles represented, then eliminate as many as possible. The ways to do that elimination are obvious to anyone who isn't actively trying to pretend they're impossible. You end up with a sensible confidence level on the identification. If the FBI chooses to denote that by putting K for Known on the reference number, that is the way their internal processes work, not a logical fallacy, and not evidence of a coverup.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine which DNA belonged to the terrorist.

False, if only a reasonable level of confidence is required - say, the "beyond reasonable doubt" level appropriate to a criminal court.

IE it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW which DNA belonged to whom because a hotel room and rental car have TOO MANY possibilities. One cannot do a process of elimination on a hotel room. No one knows who exactly was there.

Your argument here is a mess. If DNA samples are found, that's evidence that the person possessing that DNA was there. If the same DNA is found in the WTC rubble, that's evidence that the person possessing that DNA was there too. That's what's been proven.

So this begs the question....

How were 10 "known" terrorist sames provided to the medical examiner?

They were assigned to the category "known" according to FBI internal processes. That will most likely be specified in a procedural document. That's just how organisations work. If you want to prove that there is some kind of coverup, you need to find that document and demonstrate how the samples provided do not conform to the specification given.

It isn't like the FBI gave them a database of all hotel and rental car DNA and compared for a match. No, that didn't happen.

No, because the FBI doesn't choose to do things the stupidest way possible. Presumably the FBI seemed to think that some element of investigation was required by their remit. Strange, that. Almost as if it was specified in the title of the organisation.

10 known DNA samples were provided, WITHOUT chain of custody documents.

Chain of custody needs to be established in court proceedings, so should that be required the FBI will need to provide them. For inter-agency communications, why bother? The NY Medical Examiners' Office isn't required to investigate the FBI.

You can't ignore this.

All I can't ignore is that you desperately want to believe that there's some incomprehensible coverup going on here, and you can't understand that your arguments for it are utterly idiotic.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

People who mention chain of custody are clueless I'm afraid.

Dont waste time on them, the lurkers have all the links and evidence they need

 

[chillzero]

So most of you are attempting the following:

DNA was found in a rental car known to be rented by a suspected terrorist. The same DNA was found in a hotel room rented by a suspected terrorist.

Therefore, the DNA is most likely the terrorists.

Did you miss this little summary? I'd like your comment on that.

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?

 

[LastChild]

I really don't think there's any point in anyone ever responding to LastChild directly. If you present him with evidence, he does what he did in this post: snips out the evidence from the quote, then pretends it was never there in the first place. He doesn't seem to realise that the evidence is still there in the original post, and it's only necessary to scroll up a page to see it. Faced with this staggering level of dishonesty, how can anyone ever take him seriously?

Dave

How would you know? You never present any evidence.

 

[LastChild]

Still failing.

List the Hijackers and show how each one was identified. What's the matter is your official version of events letting you down once again?

tsk tsk how sad and dysfunctional.

 

[A W Smith]

Still failing.

List the Hijackers and show how each one was identified. What's the matter is your official version of events letting you down once again?

tsk tsk how sad and dysfunctional.

Project much?

We have shown and demonstrated how the hijackers were identified which stood the test in a court of law. Whats the matter LC? cannot prove otherwise and are down to spltting semantics?

 

[Sizzler]

No, it isn't. "Most likely" is correct. "Absolutely certain" is incorrect.



Then DNA from both terrorists would have been found. There were ten of them. This identifies two. Where's the problem?



Then there would be more than ten sets of DNA profiles identified. Since there weren't, we know this didn't happen.



Then they would have left records which could be checked. People renting cars tend to leave paper trails with the car rental company. This can be checked. People renting hotel rooms sign the register. This can be checked. Carry out the process of elimination, and if all goes well the FBI ends up with only ten profiles, which are known with reasonable certainty to be those of the ten individuals who signed their names on the registers and used their credit cards to pay for the car rentals.

Sizzler, you seem to believe that people go through life without leaving any records. It's simply not true, and it's one of the many things conspiracy theorists whinge about. It's actually very simple: take samples from the rooms and the cars, find out the number of different DNA profiles represented, then eliminate as many as possible. The ways to do that elimination are obvious to anyone who isn't actively trying to pretend they're impossible. You end up with a sensible confidence level on the identification. If the FBI chooses to denote that by putting K for Known on the reference number, that is the way their internal processes work, not a logical fallacy, and not evidence of a coverup.



False, if only a reasonable level of confidence is required - say, the "beyond reasonable doubt" level appropriate to a criminal court.



Your argument here is a mess. If DNA samples are found, that's evidence that the person possessing that DNA was there. If the same DNA is found in the WTC rubble, that's evidence that the person possessing that DNA was there too. That's what's been proven.



They were assigned to the category "known" according to FBI internal processes. That will most likely be specified in a procedural document. That's just how organisations work. If you want to prove that there is some kind of coverup, you need to find that document and demonstrate how the samples provided do not conform to the specification given.



No, because the FBI doesn't choose to do things the stupidest way possible. Presumably the FBI seemed to think that some element of investigation was required by their remit. Strange, that. Almost as if it was specified in the title of the organisation.



Chain of custody needs to be established in court proceedings, so should that be required the FBI will need to provide them. For inter-agency communications, why bother? The NY Medical Examiners' Office isn't required to investigate the FBI.



All I can't ignore is that you desperately want to believe that there's some incomprehensible coverup going on here, and you can't understand that your arguments for it are utterly idiotic.

Dave

So you seem pretty convinced that a process of elimination is strong enough to make an identification. You have even stated that identification can be made that is beyond reasonable doubt, the very measure of truth in court.

So this means that a court would accept DNA evidence obtained via a process of elimination. This also means that hotel rooms and rental cars count too.

So if I can determine that such evidence is not acceptable in a court of law, would you retract all of your statements?

And if such evidence is acceptable I will retract all my statements.

Deal?

 

[Sizzler]

Did you miss this little summary? I'd like your comment on that.

It isn't just that though.

Have you ever been to a hotel? Have you ever brought a guest? Was a paper trail left for your guest?

Have you ever rented a car? Now imagine driving your guest around. Would that leave a paper trail too?

So the police find your guests DNA but not yours in both the hotel room and the car. Using the paper trail for YOU (no trail exists for the guest) the cops would conclude that your guests DNA is actually yours.

Understand?

A hotel room has too many users. Thus no one can eliminate possibilities to arrive at an acceptable match.

All one has to do is bring a guest and the whole game is over.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What our resident truthers are saying is this:

"There's no way to be absolutely sure about anything. Therefore, it makes sense to accuse people we don't like* of mass murder with no evidence whatsoever."


*Jews, politicians, people who make more money than us, Jews, bankers, etc

 

[JimBenArm]

Could this be why Sizzler and LastChild don't work in the fields of criminal investigation?
I think we have clear evidence...

 

[Dave Rogers]

So if I can determine that such evidence is not acceptable in a court of law, would you retract all of your statements?

And if such evidence is acceptable I will retract all my statements.

Deal?

No deal, because I don't for one moment believe that you're going to try honestly to determine which point of view is more supported by the balance of evidence available. What I expect you to do is find a single example of a court ruling - I suspect you already have one up your sleeve - where in the specific circumstances of the case a DNA identification based on a process partly involving elimination was rejected by the court, and argue that your one pathological ruling sets a precedent for every other criminal case that has ever existed. There are ample possibilities for a process of both elimination and correlation to determine the validity of the hijacker DNA samples, and a court would naturally consider each individual case on its own merits. As far as I know, in the Moussaoui case a court has done so.

So no, I'm not playing along with your game.

Dave

 

[Par]

Have you ever been to a hotel? Have you ever brought a guest? Was a paper trail left for your guest? Have you ever rented a car? Now imagine driving your guest around. Would that leave a paper trail too? So the police find your guests DNA but not yours in both the hotel room and the car. Using the paper trail for YOU (no trail exists for the guest) the cops would conclude that your guests DNA is actually yours. Understand? A hotel room has too many users. Thus no one can eliminate possibilities to arrive at an acceptable match. All one has to do is bring a guest and the whole game is over.

You seem to keep forgetting that said DNA Profile wasn’t only found in both the hotel room and the rental car, but also amongst the debris at the World Trade Center site.

 

[kookbreaker]

What is Sizzler's problem?

He thinks that becuase other people use rental cars and hotels that this somehow vindicates the hijackers?

You add into the investigation mix, a bunch of DNA from previous users of the hotel room, and what does it mean? These people's DNA doesn't show up at Ground Zero. So what is the problem?

So if a hijacker brings a guest, that guest doesn't go in the planes. Then we don't have a trail leading to them. But we do have the DNA of the hijacker, whose DNA is found at the hotel and at Ground Zero.

Seriously, what is the FREAKING PROBLEM here?! This is basic detective work!

 

[aggle-rithm]

It isn't just that though.

Have you ever been to a hotel? Have you ever brought a guest? Was a paper trail left for your guest?

Have you ever rented a car? Now imagine driving your guest around. Would that leave a paper trail too?

So the police find your guests DNA but not yours in both the hotel room and the car. Using the paper trail for YOU (no trail exists for the guest) the cops would conclude that your guests DNA is actually yours.

Understand?

A hotel room has too many users. Thus no one can eliminate possibilities to arrive at an acceptable match.

All one has to do is bring a guest and the whole game is over.

Did this guest kill a bunch of people in a suicide attack? Is there any chance that, if my DNA is found at the attack scene, that they will conclude that the guests DNA is mine?

More importantly -- DOES IT REALLY MATTER? If the guest's DNA is found at all three places, and he has known ties to terrorist organizations, then it's a safe bet that he's involved. If YOUR DNA is found at all three places, then it would be safe to assume that you are involved somehow, since the terrorist was your guest and you went with him when he carried out his attack.

 

[Sizzler]

You seem to keep forgetting that said DNA Profile wasn’t only found in both the hotel room and the rental car, but also amongst the debris at the World Trade Center site.

The problem is that exactly 10 samples were provided by the FBI to the examiner with K-labels, indicating they were from a "known" individual.

This suggests the FBI already knew who the DNA belonged to.

But, this is impossible, IMO, because a hotel room is too contaminated for a process of elimination.

Imagine the hijackers DNA didn't actually show up in the hotel room or car. However unidentified DNA of another person did (again, this could be a friend of the hijacker) and in both locations.

This DNA would be perceived as the hijackers.

This is simple logic and I bet a court wouldn't accept such DNA evidence. A defense lawyer could easily establish doubt.

 

[chillzero]

It isn't just that though.

Have you ever been to a hotel? Have you ever brought a guest? Was a paper trail left for your guest?

Have you ever rented a car? Now imagine driving your guest around. Would that leave a paper trail too?

So the police find your guests DNA but not yours in both the hotel room and the car. Using the paper trail for YOU (no trail exists for the guest) the cops would conclude that your guests DNA is actually yours.

Understand?

A hotel room has too many users. Thus no one can eliminate possibilities to arrive at an acceptable match.

All one has to do is bring a guest and the whole game is over.

I believe that they have additional evidence that allows them to identify the people in the hotel / hire car... CCTV, etc - not just the paper trail.

You are missing a step here, which you actually harped on about at some length earlier. The DNA from the hotel and car was considered identified. They knew who's DNA it was. What they can't do is narrow it down to which of the two people belongs to which sample of DNA.

To use your own example, if your guest accompanied you on the plane to hijack it, then yes, I;d be satisfied with how much that identification was narrowed down to you both. I wouldn't be too concerned that they can't tell which of you is left behind as sample A, and which is sample B.

If the issue was that one of the 'dead' samples came from the plane, and one came from, say, a casino in Vegas, then I'd be more concerned about getting the differentiation made as one would clearly be innocent and the other not.

Understand?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The problem is that exactly 10 samples were provided by the FBI to the examiner with K-labels, indicating they were from a "known" individual.

This suggests the FBI already knew who the DNA belonged to.

But, this is impossible, IMO, because a hotel room is too contaminated for a process of elimination.

Imagine the hijackers DNA didn't actually show up in the hotel room or car. However unidentified DNA of another person did (again, this could be a friend of the hijacker) and in both locations.

This DNA would be perceived as the hijackers.

This is simple logic and I bet a court wouldn't accept such DNA evidence. A defense lawyer could easily establish doubt.

So, since the hijackers, had they lived to stand trial, MIGHT have gotten off on a technicality, you conclude that it was an inside job?

I think I missed a few of your arguing points.

 

[chillzero]

Imagine the hijackers DNA didn't actually show up in the hotel room or car. However unidentified DNA of another person did (again, this could be a friend of the hijacker) and in both locations.

This DNA would be perceived as the hijackers.

Was this DNA also found on the plane?

 

[Sizzler]

No deal, because I don't for one moment believe that you're going to try honestly to determine which point of view is more supported by the balance of evidence available. What I expect you to do is find a single example of a court ruling - I suspect you already have one up your sleeve - where in the specific circumstances of the case a DNA identification based on a process partly involving elimination was rejected by the court, and argue that your one pathological ruling sets a precedent for every other criminal case that has ever existed. There are ample possibilities for a process of both elimination and correlation to determine the validity of the hijacker DNA samples, and a court would naturally consider each individual case on its own merits. As far as I know, in the Moussaoui case a court has done so.

So no, I'm not playing along with your game.

Dave

Ok then. Do you have any examples of a court accepting DNA evidence similar to what you propose in this thread?

If you do, I might retract...