Info about DNA recovery at WTC?

[pomeroo]

What is the DNA matched to genius? An unidentified person in a hotel and a rental car?

From your link at the lame 911myths...

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

How were the couple of people in the hotel room and the rental car positively identified first? And how does this positively identify any never mind all 19 hijackers?

Do you even know why you fail? I mean how many times to I have to rub your nose in your mess before you get it and don't do it again?

Someone incapable of distinguishing supply from demand is not in a position to condescend to anyone else. The people who rented the rooms and the cars gave names. The DNA of those people showed up at the crash sites of the planes hijacked on 9/11/01. Possibly you really are so obtuse that you don't get it. Personally, I believe your problem is a combination of stupidity and dishonesty.

No, I don't know why I fail. Nobody here understands why I fail either. There is a reason: I didn't fail.

Now, a more interesting question is why you pretend that people vastly more intelligent and knowledgeable than yourself are failing at something that is never quite specified. The notion of you rubbing anyone's face in anything is laughable. You have been squashed like a bug in every stupid, pointless thread you've started. You have never come close to demonstrating any of your absurd contentions.

Where is the raging controversy over the inadequacy of the FBI's investigation? Who, apart from agenda-driven morons, doubts that the bureau's forensic techniques are state-of-the-art? We get the idea that you refuse to contact the FBI because you are too intellectually lazy to lift a finger to promote your evil cause's goal of lynching innocent men and women. But, some of us wonder exactly what you are willing to do. There must be something. Being a punching-bag for us rationalists may satisfy your masochistic urges, but it isn't advancing the revolution.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

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.

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

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.

So this begs the question....

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

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.

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

You can't ignore this.

Predictably, the vacuous Child ran away with his tail between his legs when I asked him the question reproduced below. Perhaps you'd care to take a crack at it? Incidentally, can we conclude that you have added the FBI to your rather bloated imaginary conspiracy, you sly agnostic?

***********************

I confess that your mental processes, superficially similar to thought yet so much less, fascinate me. A glimpse into the mind of a genius might inspire us to expand our mental horizons. You, by contrast, are the embodiment of everything we should avoid. I simply have to inquire into your method of moving across the cerebral landscape.

Let us suppose that Ali and Mahmoud rent a hotel room. During their stay, they also rent a car. Their DNA is available in the room (hairs in the bed, the sink, and the shower; flakes of skin; body fluids on the sheets and toilet seat). These samples match samples found in the car. We can state with confidence that know that two people who signed in as Ali and Mahmoud shared a room and a car, but we don't know who's who. Are you with me? Now, DNA found at the site of a plane crash matches the DNA samples from the room and the car. We still can't tell who is Ali and who is Mahmoud. We're on the same page up to this point? You are arguing that we aren't sure if the two men were on the plane. Am I presenting your position fairly? Can we assume that this is not a straw man and there really exists a living, breathing member of the highest order of priimates who is capable of taking such a position?

Please--tell us more.

 

[Sizzler]

Predictably, the vacuous Child ran away with his tail between his legs when I asked him the question reproduced below. Perhaps you'd care to take a crack at it? Incidentally, can we conclude that you have added the FBI to your rather bloated imaginary conspiracy, you sly agnostic?

***********************

I confess that your mental processes, superficially similar to thought yet so much less, fascinate me. A glimpse into the mind of a genius might inspire us to expand our mental horizons. You, by contrast, are the embodiment of everything we should avoid. I simply have to inquire into your method of moving across the cerebral landscape.

Let us suppose that Ali and Mahmoud rent a hotel room. During their stay, they also rent a car. Their DNA is available in the room (hairs in the bed, the sink, and the shower; flakes of skin; body fluids on the sheets and toilet seat). These samples match samples found in the car. We can state with confidence that know that two people who signed in as Ali and Mahmoud shared a room and a car, but we don't know who's who. Are you with me? Now, DNA found at the site of a plane crash matches the DNA samples from the room and the car. We still can't tell who is Ali and who is Mahmoud. We're on the same page up to this point? You are arguing that we aren't sure if the two men were on the plane. Am I presenting your position fairly? Can we assume that this is not a straw man and there really exists a living, breathing member of the highest order of priimates who is capable of taking such a position?

Please--tell us more.

I've dealt with this question in this thread.

Imagine the two terrorists rented hookers or had friends over. They also drove them around in the car.

Imagine one of the terrorists DNA was only found in one of the locations (either the car or hotel), but not both. Now imagine the friend of the hooker's DNA was found in both.

A paper trail does not exist for the friend or hooker. Thus the matching DNA in the car and the hotel room would be perceived as being from one of the terrorists, when in fact it was from the friend and the hooker.

Now this DNA is labeled as KNOWN by the FBI BEFORE comparison to the WTC remains.

Yet, the DNA of the terrorist could NEVER be KNOWN via a process of elimination from a hotel room. Hotel rooms are too contaminated and with visitors coming and going, not all people would leave a paper trail.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've dealt with this question in this thread.

Imagine the two terrorists rented hookers or had friends over. They also drove them around in the car.

Imagine one of the terrorists DNA was only found in one of the locations (either the car or hotel), but not both. Now imagine the friend of the hooker's DNA was found in both.

So there's an unidentified DNA sample in the hotel room or in the car. That makes it obvious to the investigators that they haven't eliminated all the alternative possibilities, so there's some doubt over the identification of the DNA profiles. Of course, we need to know how the terrorist drove the car without leaving any hairs anywhere in the interior, despite the fact that the hooker left enough DNA for a profile just from backing the car out of the garage; but in the specific scenario you've dreamed up, there's room for doubt.

Now, suppose there is only one set of DNA unidentified; all other DNA samples have been checked against previous users and eliminated. Suppose the DNA is male, and shows evidence of Middle Eastern origin. Suppose it's been found in several locations in the hotel room, including between the sheets in the bed. OK, that doesn't necessarily rule out the hooker, but you've then got to explain how your hijacker had sex with a Middle Eastern male prostitute without leaving any DNA traces. I'm sure you can concoct a far-fetched scenario given long enough, but there comes a point where you're way beyond the level of reasonable doubt.

Since you don't actually know how many DNA samples were found, where, in each hotel room, and how the others were ruled out, and how many samples were found in the hire cars, etc., etc., etc., basically what you're saying is this:

In some circumstances it is possible to construct a case in which a specific DNA profile cannot be associated with a specific individual with sufficient confidence. Therefore, it is never possible to associate a specific set of ten DNA profiles with a specific set of ten individuals.
​

This is an argument that affirms the consequent, and therefore is invalid.

You can construct as many pathological cases as you like, but unless and until you can find out some information about how many samples were tested, where, and how the process of identification was carried out, you will have nothing but speculation. And since, when the evidence was examined by a court in the Moussaoui trial, that court found it to be convincing, the only piece of relevant evidence is therefore against your speculation.

And even if you were to prove your case, the best you could possibly come up with is not evidence of an inside job or a cover-up, it would be a recommendation that the FBI revise its definition of the level of confidence required to assign a K-code. That's not 9-11 truth, it's management consultancy.

Dave

 

[bynmdsue]

Did the FBI vacuum this DNA off the carpet or was it taken from personal effects left behind in hotel or car?

 

[chillzero]

I was wondering if the person identified from the hotel and hire car that is a strong possible match to the DNA found at those locations and the WTC, also created a martyr video?

 

[Par]

Feel free to list as many positive identifications you can. I won't hold my breath.

You keep demanding that we accept the burden of proof. But it isn’t us who want a new investigation, and so this request can only ever generate one of two possibilities:

• We accept the burden of proof: We do something unnecessary, but there’s still no new investigation or change in paradigm, and so we stay happy and you stay frustrated.
• We refuse the burden of proof: There’s no new investigation or change in paradigm, and so we stay happy and you stay frustrated.

The only way in which you can hope to alter this outcome is by attempting to prove your own case. I won’t hold my breath, either.

 

[twinstead]

Sizzler sounds like some sleazy, incompetent lawyer trying to get his obviously guilty client off on some hair-brained technicality.

In this case, his clients appear to be the real hijackers of the planes, and he's trying to absolve them of any guilt in the murder of thousands of innocent people. It's disgusting.

 

[Par]

Let us suppose that Ali and Mahmoud rent a hotel room. During their stay, they also rent a car. Their DNA is available in the room (hairs in the bed, the sink, and the shower; flakes of skin; body fluids on the sheets and toilet seat). These samples match samples found in the car. We can state with confidence that know that two people who signed in as Ali and Mahmoud shared a room and a car, but we don't know who's who. Are you with me? Now, DNA found at the site of a plane crash matches the DNA samples from the room and the car. We still can't tell who is Ali and who is Mahmoud. We're on the same page up to this point? You are arguing that we aren't sure if the two men were on the plane. Am I presenting your position fairly? Can we assume that this is not a straw man and there really exists a living, breathing member of the highest order of priimates who is capable of taking such a position?

I've dealt with this question in this thread.

Imagine the two terrorists rented hookers or had friends over. They also drove them around in the car.

Imagine one of the terrorists DNA was only found in one of the locations (either the car or hotel), but not both. Now imagine the friend of the hooker's DNA was found in both.

A paper trail does not exist for the friend or hooker. Thus the matching DNA in the car and the hotel room would be perceived as being from one of the terrorists, when in fact it was from the friend and the hooker.

Now this DNA is labeled as KNOWN by the FBI BEFORE comparison to the WTC remains.

Yet, the DNA of the terrorist could NEVER be KNOWN via a process of elimination from a hotel room. Hotel rooms are too contaminated and with visitors coming and going, not all people would leave a paper trail.

Ron, seemingly, Sizzler is now happy enough that the DNA Profiles found in all three locations were those of hijackers. His criticism focuses on the possibility of improper procedure. I think that much of the confusion stems from the fact that he seems rather reluctant to state as much clearly. I don’t know why.

Sizzler, could you, well, state as much clearly?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I've dealt with this question in this thread.

Imagine the two terrorists rented hookers or had friends over. They also drove them around in the car.

Wait a minute. HOOKERS carried out the attacks?!?

Imagine one of the terrorists DNA was only found in one of the locations (either the car or hotel), but not both. Now imagine the friend of the hooker's DNA was found in both.

A paper trail does not exist for the friend or hooker. Thus the matching DNA in the car and the hotel room would be perceived as being from one of the terrorists, when in fact it was from the friend and the hooker.

Now this DNA is labeled as KNOWN by the FBI BEFORE comparison to the WTC remains.

Yet, the DNA of the terrorist could NEVER be KNOWN via a process of elimination from a hotel room. Hotel rooms are too contaminated and with visitors coming and going, not all people would leave a paper trail.

Relax, Sizzler. Your buddies are OFF THE HOOK. They DIED in the crash, remember? They successfully BEAT THE SYSTEM!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

did sizzler ever contact the FBI to determine what K means?

 

[pomeroo]

I've dealt with this question in this thread.

Imagine the two terrorists rented hookers or had friends over. They also drove them around in the car.

Imagine one of the terrorists DNA was only found in one of the locations (either the car or hotel), but not both. Now imagine the friend of the hooker's DNA was found in both.

A paper trail does not exist for the friend or hooker. Thus the matching DNA in the car and the hotel room would be perceived as being from one of the terrorists, when in fact it was from the friend and the hooker.

Now this DNA is labeled as KNOWN by the FBI BEFORE comparison to the WTC remains.

Yet, the DNA of the terrorist could NEVER be KNOWN via a process of elimination from a hotel room. Hotel rooms are too contaminated and with visitors coming and going, not all people would leave a paper trail.

It is sad to contemplate that you may actually think you've "dealt with" this devastating blow to your uninformed fantasy. Take a deep breath and try to comprehend what people are asking you. SOMEONE'S DNA is found in a hotel room and a rental car. THAT SAME DNA shows up at a crash site. What do you conclude? If the DNA belongs to the hooker hired by the guy with the Arabic-sounding name, why is HIS name the one that appears on the passenger manifests?

You have no idea how ridiculous you are making yourself, do you?

 

[Sizzler]

It is sad to contemplate that you may actually think you've "dealt with" this devastating blow to your uninformed fantasy. Take a deep breath and try to comprehend what people are asking you. SOMEONE'S DNA is found in a hotel room and a rental car. THAT SAME DNA shows up at a crash site. What do you conclude? If the DNA belongs to the hooker hired by the guy with the Arabic-sounding name, why is HIS name the one that appears on the passenger manifests?

You have no idea how ridiculous you are making yourself, do you?

So that hooker was in WTC on 9-11. Her DNA matches. She is now the terrorist.

This is why such DNA evidence in not conclusive. Hotel rooms and rental cars are too contaminated.

Heck, they put John Doe on the death certificates from flight 93, because process of elimination is not a known match.

Yet, for WTC, the FBI has claimed to have made a known match, when in fact, they haven't.

 

[applecorped]

So.

 

[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.)

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

I won't hold my breath.

LastChild, your dodging of my question shows why there will be no new investigation: you cannot point out any available evidence that hasn't been investigated, or methods of investigation that haven't already been used, in the investigations already conducted.

You claim that the DNA evidence is insufficient to satisfy you. At this point, that's just too bad, because DNA identification is by far the best and most reliable means of identification known to the world. That's why people who were convicted of crimes based on other less reliable methods of identification are being set free when DNA test results, all by themselves, contradict everything else. No matter how many eyewitness reports, police line-ups, bite marks, psychological profiles, lie detector tests, pictures on videotape, veteran police officers' gut instincts, Sherlock Holmes's cigar ash collection, or even fingerprints seem to point to a suspect's guilt, if the DNA doesn't match, we throw all that other stuff away and let him walk.

In the 9/11 case, the DNA evidence confirms all the other evidence regarding the hijackers' identities. So, anyone who says they want a different analysis, is saying they want an inferior, less reliable analysis. I can think of no ethically defensible reason for wanting that. Anyone who wants that is either confused to the point of imbecility, or has evil intent.

Personally, my only interest in the hijacker's names is historical. All the hijackers were aboard the planes, all the planes crashed with no survivors, therefore all the hijackers are dead. There's no court case to appeal or overturn.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

So that hooker was in WTC on 9-11. Her DNA matches. She is now the terrorist.

So, the FBI hijacker's list looks like this?

Mohammed Atta, Egyptian
Waleed al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
Wail al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
Abdulaziz al-Omar, Saudi Arabian
Satam al-Suqami, Saudi Arabian
Marwan al-Shehhi, UAR
Fayez Banihammad, UAR
Mohand al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
Candy Sparkle, aka Mary Fergusen, American (raised in Lansing, Michigan)
Ahmed al-Ghamdi...

You're right, the investigative might of the FBI might not be up to the task of resolving such an unfathomable conundrum.

So Sizzler, how about you try answering my question? LastChild couldn't, but I have hope that you at least can understand what the question means and why it's important. What evidence or lines of inquiry related to determination of the hijackers' identities do you believe has been overlooked in the investigations so far?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Slayhamlet]

So that hooker was in WTC on 9-11. Her DNA matches. She is now the terrorist.

This is why such DNA evidence in not conclusive. Hotel rooms and rental cars are too contaminated.

So the hooker, after fooling the airport check-in agents and all the other security personnel into believing she was an Arab male (all the other passengers are accounted for: no hookers), took a flight with the same foreign Arab guy she had been cavorting with the night before? Or are you saying she could have taken a red-eye that night to New York and inexplicably showed up at the WTC the next day to die?

What are we supposed to make of someone who thinks this way? Do you think it's funny? What?

Heck, they put John Doe on the death certificates from flight 93, because process of elimination is not a known match.

Yet, for WTC, the FBI has claimed to have made a known match, when in fact, they haven't.

Your uninformed guesses about FBI procedure are worthless, remember? Who do you think you're fooling with this crap?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

So that hooker was in WTC on 9-11. Her DNA matches. She is now the terrorist.

there 2 problems with this

1: the same one i mentioned earlier (if the DNA is anyone but a hijacker it would match family members DNA taen for identification of victims)

2: presumably the hooker is female, and this could be identified from the DNA, no unidentified female DNA samples were linked to the hijackers

 

[Sizzler]

there 2 problems with this

1: the same one i mentioned earlier (if the DNA is anyone but a hijacker it would match family members DNA taen for identification of victims)

2: presumably the hooker is female, and this could be identified from the DNA, no unidentified female DNA samples were linked to the hijackers

1. No family members alive.

2. It was a male friend instead of a hooker, or, a male hooker.

See.

One cannot possibly identify a known via process of elimination.

 

[Sizzler]

So, the FBI hijacker's list looks like this?

Mohammed Atta, Egyptian
Waleed al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
Wail al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
Abdulaziz al-Omar, Saudi Arabian
Satam al-Suqami, Saudi Arabian
Marwan al-Shehhi, UAR
Fayez Banihammad, UAR
Mohand al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
Candy Sparkle, aka Mary Fergusen, American (raised in Lansing, Michigan)
Ahmed al-Ghamdi...

You're right, the investigative might of the FBI might not be up to the task of resolving such an unfathomable conundrum.

So Sizzler, how about you try answering my question? LastChild couldn't, but I have hope that you at least can understand what the question means and why it's important. What evidence or lines of inquiry related to determination of the hijackers' identities do you believe has been overlooked in the investigations so far?

Respectfully,
Myriad

The only thing I find suspicious at this time is that wtc hijacker's DNA was known by the FBI from looking in hotels and rental cars.

That is an impossibility.