Info about DNA recovery at WTC?

[Swing Dangler]

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

Can you please detail the Accession process that the NY City Chief Medical Examiner’s Office and its Forensic Biology Department engaged in during the victim identification process for those of us that are supposedly clueless?

Thanks and I await the lesson.

 

[Sizzler]

Was this DNA also found on the plane?

But that isn't the way it worked.

10 samples K-labeled, meaning of "known" identity, were given to the examiner before comparing them to WTC remains.

Someone has proposed that only 10 matches were found for the car and the hotel room.

But, what if one of the Hijacker's DNA only could be found in the hotel but not a car, yet his "friend's" DNA was found in both?

In this situation, the "friend" would be labeled as the terrorist.

Thus the FBI could not have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually had the hijacker's DNA.

If they took a database of DNA from the hotel and the car and compared it to WTC remains that would be a different story. From there they could infer which match was "likely".

But that isn't the way it went. The hijacker's DNA was "known" BEFORE being compared to the WTC remains.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Sizzler, there is a vitally important question to be asked here, that I suspect you have no idea of the answer to.

What is the criterion used by the FBI for assigning a K-label to a DNA profile?

The K-label is, presumably, an FBI specific designation for a DNA profile. There will therefore, as I said before, be criteria for assigning such a designation. The entire thrust of your argument appears to be that the K-label was wrongly assigned, therefore there was in internal cover-up by the FBI. However, this isn't an argument that can be settled by recourse to logic; it's a specific statement about whether a specific process was or was not followed correctly. If you don't know what the process was, you can't possibly argue that it wasn't followed.

Dave

 

[chillzero]

But that isn't the way it worked.

I think you are mistaken here.

No comment on my post before the one you answered?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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...

Since all you have is an argument from ignorance, I'm not really concerned whether or not you retract it.

Dave

 

[DGM]

Sizzler:
What did the FBI have to say about their definition of "known" as it applies to DNA? Have you located the criteria for such a classification yet?

Also, Have you ever seen the hijackers referred to as anything other than "alleged" or "suspected" (on anything offical)?

 

[gumboot]

To suggest that you can determine anything about the location of terrorists prior to impact based on where their remains were found after being buried under two collapsing 110 storey buildings after having been rammed into one of those buildings at 500 MPH goes so far beyond stupid it's really not even worth contemplating.

 

[Par]

But that isn't the way it worked.

10 samples K-labeled, meaning of "known" identity, were given to the examiner before comparing them to WTC remains.

Someone has proposed that only 10 matches were found for the car and the hotel room.

But, what if one of the Hijacker's DNA only could be found in the hotel but not a car, yet his "friend's" DNA was found in both?

In this situation, the "friend" would be labeled as the terrorist.

Thus the FBI could not have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually had the hijacker's DNA.

If they took a database of DNA from the hotel and the car and compared it to WTC remains that would be a different story. From there they could infer which match was "likely".

But that isn't the way it went. The hijacker's DNA was "known" BEFORE being compared to the WTC remains.

Even if the profile in question was prematurely labelled as “KNOWN”, that still wouldn’t have resulted in false positives amongst the debris at the World Trade Center site.

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, there is a vitally important question to be asked here, that I suspect you have no idea of the answer to.

What is the criterion used by the FBI for assigning a K-label to a DNA profile?

The K-label is, presumably, an FBI specific designation for a DNA profile. There will therefore, as I said before, be criteria for assigning such a designation. The entire thrust of your argument appears to be that the K-label was wrongly assigned, therefore there was in internal cover-up by the FBI. However, this isn't an argument that can be settled by recourse to logic; it's a specific statement about whether a specific process was or was not followed correctly. If you don't know what the process was, you can't possibly argue that it wasn't followed.

Dave

You are very correct. I can't conclusively prove anything with the evidence I have presented. Heck, I'm basing this whole thing on a quote from the examiner in charge...(no sarcasm intended).

Would you at least concede that DNA identification "beyond reasonable doubt" could not be established in a contaminated environment such as a hotel room?

Again my example using the "friend", logically demonstrates it would be easy to misidentify the DNA by comparing paper work to car and hotel DNA in a process of elimination.

Terrorist has paper trail to car and hotel. He brings a friend over and drives him home. The friend has no paper trail attached to the hotel or car.

The terrorist's DNA is found in the hotel room but not the car steering wheel (he wore gloves). The friends DNA however was found in both (he backed the car out of the driveway without gloves).

Thus by process of elimination using the paper trail, the friend would be thought of as the terrorist.

That is reasonable doubt right there because people often have guests in both their hotel rooms and cars.

But like you said, logic is not enough to conclusively show this is a cover-up. Perhaps the K-label meant "known" identity, but perhaps "known identity" doesn't actually mean what I assert it does.

By process of elimination we determine what something isn't.

So could a K-label, K meaning "known", actually mean "known what it isn't"?

Perhaps the examiner is friendly to e-mails and could enlighten us as to exactly what a K-label means.

 

[chillzero]

Again my example using the "friend", logically demonstrates it would be easy to misidentify the DNA by comparing paper work to car and hotel DNA in a process of elimination.

Terrorist has paper trail to car and hotel. He brings a friend over and drives him home. The friend has no paper trail attached to the hotel or car.

The terrorist's DNA is found in the hotel room but not the car steering wheel (he wore gloves). The friends DNA however was found in both (he backed the car out of the driveway without gloves).

Thus by process of elimination using the paper trail, the friend would be thought of as the terrorist.

.... if the friend's DNA was also found at the scene at WTC. Why are you finding this so hard to take in? Why would that be an unreasonable assumption?

 

[Sizzler]

Even if the profile in question was prematurely labelled as “KNOWN”, that still wouldn’t have resulted in false positives amongst the debris at the World Trade Center site.

Of course it could.

At the very most, all that is necessary is that a 1 other person was in 3 of the same places as one of the terrorists.

1. WTC
2. Hotel Room
3. Rental Car

There are several scenarios that could cause this.

Remember, coincidences occur all the time. Some even argue that the official narrative depends on their existence and frequency.

 

[Sizzler]

.... if the friend's DNA was also found at the scene at WTC. Why are you finding this so hard to take in? Why would that be an unreasonable assumption?

Because 10 samples labeled as "known" identity were given to the examiner before WTC comparison.

They could not have been "known" before comparison, yet they were labeled as such.

What part don't you understand?

 

[chillzero]

They could not have been "known" before comparison, yet they were labeled as such.

Why not?
I think more than a few posts here have asked you to confirm the nature of the 'K' label.

 

[DGM]

Because 10 samples labeled as "known" identity were given to the examiner before WTC comparison.

They could not have been "known" before comparison, yet they were labeled as such.

What part don't you understand?

"Known identity"? Where did you get that? Embellishing your argument?

 

[Sizzler]

Why not?
I think more than a few posts here have asked you to confirm the nature of the 'K' label.

You must be referring to the one you just read, a few post back

Yes, that is the case. Without it, one cannot conclusively know a cover-up, or at the very least, a huge screw up occurred.

What has been offered is a quote from the medical examiner involved in the case.

Again he stated that the K-label refers to know identities. And, as such, even thought the samples had no names, he took the 10 samples as being the 10 hijacker's DNA. This assumption is based on two things, number and k-label.

But yes, a proper definition of a K-label and the procedures of such would be necessary to conclusively demonstrate malpractice.

 

[gumboot]

Of course it could.

At the very most, all that is necessary is that a 1 other person was in 3 of the same places as one of the terrorists.

1. WTC
2. Hotel Room
3. Rental Car

There are several scenarios that could cause this.

Remember, coincidences occur all the time. Some even argue that the official narrative depends on their existence and frequency.

It has just occurred to me that we do not know many details of the DNA testing, particularly the sources from the hotel room and rental car. We don't know what other DNA was gathered, and if it was eliminated. We don't know how often the room or car is cleaned, nor how thoroughly. We don't know the nature of the DNA, or where in the car/room it was recovered. We don't know what other information they might have recovered that provided more information about the DNA sample.

There's a multitude of ways the FBI could have established that the DNA samples belonged to the hijackers independent of DNA testing. Without knowing those details, to claim they could not have established a "known" for the DNA is simply a lie.

 

[Sizzler]

"Known identity"? Where did you get that? Embellishing your argument?

It's called paraphrasing.

Here is the direct quote:

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

That means they know who (the origin) the DNA came from, ie, the identity, or person. It is "KNOWN".

Origin here does not mean "where the sample was found". That is obvious because one would not need to label something as "knowing" where it was found. Evidence doesn't magically appear and reappear. No need for labels in that case.

 

[tsig]

Since all you have is an argument from ignorance, I'm not really concerned whether or not you retract it.

Dave

But Dave, what if he had an argument? lol

 

[DGM]

You must be referring to the one you just read, a few post back

Yes, that is the case. Without it, one cannot conclusively know a cover-up, or at the very least, a huge screw up occurred.

What has been offered is a quote from the medical examiner involved in the case.

Again he stated that the K-label refers to know identities. And, as such, even thought the samples had no names, he took the 10 samples as being the 10 hijacker's DNA. This assumption is based on two things, number and k-label.

But yes, a proper definition of a K-label and the procedures of such would be necessary to conclusively demonstrate malpractice.

No he does not!
He says:

"No names, just a K code, which is how the FBI designates 'knowns,' or specimens it knows the origins of," Shaler wrote.

Where does he claim it means "known identity"?

 

[Sizzler]

It has just occurred to me that we do not know many details of the DNA testing, particularly the sources from the hotel room and rental car. We don't know what other DNA was gathered, and if it was eliminated. We don't know how often the room or car is cleaned, nor how thoroughly. We don't know the nature of the DNA, or where in the car/room it was recovered. We don't know what other information they might have recovered that provided more information about the DNA sample.

There's a multitude of ways the FBI could have established that the DNA samples belonged to the hijackers independent of DNA testing. Without knowing those details, to claim they could not have established a "known" for the DNA is simply a lie.

It isn't a lie, it is simply hard to prove a negative.

No one has suggested a logical way to establish a "known" identity using possible DNA sources from a hotel room and car. Of course one that would be beyond reasonable doubt.

I suggest they are too contaminated to use process of elimination.

Suggest a method and see if it passes a logic test....