Info about DNA recovery at WTC?

[Par]

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.

Well, I addressed this issue earlier:

DNA Profile X was found in a hotel room used by the hijackers. It was also found in a hire car used by the hijackers. It was also found amongst the debris at the World Trade Center site. Therefore, it’s all but certain that DNA Profile X belongs to one of the hijackers. They don’t know specifically which one, but they know that it’s one of them.

Now, I say “all but certain” because it’s just about possible – that is, technically within the practically limitless bounds of possibility – that DNA Profile X really belongs to an innocent victim who had recently stayed in that same hotel room and had recently used that same hire car and just so happened to have been killed at the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001.

However, it’s about as conclusive as one can hope for in an empirical world.

If, on the other hand, your criticism is merely that DNA Profile X shouldn’t have been labelled as “KNOWN” when it was only known to have come from one of ten people, then you’d need to present evidence to show that doing so represents improper procedure. (Even if you manage to do that, you’ve still not proven a “cover-up”; at best you’d have exposed an example of improper procedure that ultimately could have had little to no real-world consequences.)

 

[Sizzler]

No he does not!
He says:



Where does he claim it means "known identity"?

post 157

 

[DGM]

It's called paraphrasing.

Here is the direct quote:



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.

You know this how? Can I assume then you have contacted the FBI to verify this? You are making up your own definition of their term.

ETA example: These samples are "known" to be in the same places the hijackers were.

 

[tsig]

It's called paraphrasing.

Here is the direct quote:



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.

If they knew the identity they wouldn't need the DNA.

Unlabeled samples are always used in forensics. They help the prosecutor pin the case on who they want.

 

[Sizzler]

Well, I addressed this issue earlier:

DNA Profile X was found in a hotel room used by the hijackers. It was also found in a hire car used by the hijackers. It was also found amongst the debris at the World Trade Center site. Therefore, it’s all but certain that DNA Profile X belongs to one of the hijackers. They don’t know specifically which one, but they know that it’s one of them.

Now, I say “all but certain” because it’s just about possible – that is, technically within the practically limitless bounds of possibility – that DNA Profile X really belongs to an innocent victim who had recently stayed in that same hotel room and had recently used that same hire car and just so happened to have been killed at the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001.

However, it’s about as conclusive as one can hope for in an empirical world.

If, on the other hand, your criticism is merely that DNA Profile X shouldn’t have been labelled as “KNOWN” when it was only known to have come from one of ten people, then you’d need to present evidence to show that doing so represents improper procedure. (Even if you manage to do that, you’ve still not proven a “cover-up”; at best you’d have exposed an example of improper procedure that ultimately could have had little to no real-world consequences.)

Yes I agree with most of your post.

However the DNA was not simply labeled "known" when it was only known to have come from 1 of 10 people.

Those 10 people are all unknowns. Their identities cannot be concluded on given the contamination of the sources.

Essentially they have 10 unknown samples of DNA. There is nothing known about it at all.

Paper trails are not complete enough to account for all people coming and going from hotels (guests) and rental cars.

IMO this is much more serious that you express.

A definition of a k-label would be needed of course to prove anything conclusively.

 

[johnny karate]

Sizzler, I have a riddle for you:

I was born in Illinois, so who am I?

 

[Sizzler]

These samples are "known" to be in the same places the hijackers were.

Are you joking me?

So all samples collected at the hotel rooms and car got the K-labels? What a useless label. Why would the examiner comment on such a useless label?

You are suggesting the label means...."known to have been found in the same place the terrorist are known to have been"

what the?

 

[CHF]

Wow, Sizzler, LostChild and Swing Danger all back on the same day after a long break during the WAC wheelchair assault debacle.

I was afraid you'd all called it quits.

 

[CHF]

dp

 

[defaultdotxbe]

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.

theres one hitch in your logic, any non-hijacker DNA found at the WTC would have the DNA of immediate family members to compare it to, and thus it would be positively identified as another victim and not a hijacker

 

[theprestige]

Thanks, everybody! My question has been thoroughly and satisfyingly answered.

 

[A W Smith]

The evidence was accepted in a court of law which resulted in a conviction by jury trial.. I think we are done here.

 

[DGM]

Are you joking me?

So all samples collected at the hotel rooms and car got the K-labels? What a useless label. Why would the examiner comment on such a useless label?

You are suggesting the label means...."known to have been found in the same place the terrorist are known to have been"

what the?

This was all part of the early investigation. All they would be doing is collecting evidence from "known" locations to be pieced together later. I can't understand why you would find this to be odd. The FBI was doing what it does, INVESTIGATES. You know they don't prosecute or pass judgment don't you?

 

[johnny karate]

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.

If we're going to to play the language parsing game, allow me to point out that "specimen" is synonymous with "sample". And from where did they acquire these samples? So yes, "specimens of known origin" does mean "where the sample was found".

Of course, you could always just contact the FBI or the ME who made the statement for clarification, instead of playing this tired little semantic game. But then again, only someone interested in finding out the truth would do that.

 

[johnny karate]

So all samples collected at the hotel rooms and car got the K-labels? What a useless label. Why would the examiner comment on such a useless label?

You are suggesting the label means...."known to have been found in the same place the terrorist are known to have been"

what the?

Sizzler, why don't you simply contact the FBI and ask them to explain the meaning of this label you find so troublesome?

 

[Par]

Yes I agree with most of your post. However the DNA was not simply labeled "known" when it was only known to have come from 1 of 10 people. Those 10 people are all unknowns. Their identities cannot be concluded on given the contamination of the sources. Essentially they have 10 unknown samples of DNA. There is nothing known about it at all. Paper trails are not complete enough to account for all people coming and going from hotels (guests) and rental cars. IMO this is much more serious that you express. A definition of a k-label would be needed of course to prove anything conclusively.

I see. You’re happy enough that the DNA Profiles found in all three locations were those of hijackers. Your criticism focuses on the possibility of improper procedure. That’s fine. I don’t suppose we can go much further without the definition you mention, agreed. In light of this, however, I don’t know if this actually qualifies as a conspiracy theory at all. Oh well.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Sizzler, why don't you simply contact the FBI and ask them to explain the meaning of this label you find so troublesome?

I'm curious about this, too. It seems like such an obvious step, but you, Sizzler, seem to be much too content in accepting your personal interpretation rather than go to the source and discover the truth.

The truth is not merely what makes the most sense to you. As an investigator, your default position should not be to simply assume that you are correct.

 

[Myriad]

Sizzler and LastChild,

What evidence or lines of inquiry related to determination of the hijackers' identities do you believe has been overlooked in the investigations so far?

(Feel free to list as many as you'd like.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[LastChild]

Sizzler and LastChild,

What evidence or lines of inquiry related to determination of the hijackers' identities do you believe has been overlooked in the investigations so far?

(Feel free to list as many as you'd like.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

I already listed 19. Feel free to list as many positive identifications you can.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[johnny karate]

You forgot to say "NEXT"