Info about DNA recovery at WTC?

[defaultdotxbe]

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.

so this was a non-person? no one knew they were gone? seems a bit of a stretch, dont yo uthink? isnt much more likely it was just one of the hijackers?

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.

did you ever get around to calling them to find otu what K means, or are you just assuming youre right?

 

[Sizzler]

so this was a non-person? no one knew they were gone? seems a bit of a stretch, dont yo uthink? isnt much more likely it was just one of the hijackers?

Are we non-persons when we are alone in this world without a family member?

Is not having a family member really a stretch?

Come on now, just walk around the streets at night. People die everyday in America without anyone claiming to have lost anyone.

did you ever get around to calling them to find otu what K means, or are you just assuming youre right?

No I have not. I'm still using the chief medical examiners definition of a K-code.

He says K-code means "known" origin of DNA. Origin means, where did it originally come from. And well, we all know DNA originally comes from people.

So....

 

[Slayhamlet]

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.

Why was this "male friend" of the hijackers on the same plane as the other hijackers? It couldn't be because he was a hijacker, could it? No...

 

[johnny karate]

No I have not. I'm still using the chief medical examiners definition of a K-code.

He says K-code means "known" origin of DNA. Origin means, where did it originally come from. And well, we all know DNA originally comes from people.

So....

No, you're parsing the ME's words to suit your agenda.

He doesn't refer to the origin of DNA, he refers to the origin of the specimens:

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

The DNA came from the suspects. The specimens came from the hotel rooms, rental cars, etc.

Of course, there's one very easy way for you to resolve this issue: contact somebody who has the information and ask them. But we all know you won't do that. You're to busy playing the classic "Unless it can be proven 100% to my satisfaction, then it didn't happen" Truther game.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Are we non-persons when we are alone in this world without a family member?

Is not having a family member really a stretch?

Come on now, just walk around the streets at night. People die everyday in America without anyone claiming to have lost anyone.

so the hijackers picked up some random bum on the street, hung out with him for a while, then somehow that same bum found his where to the WTC when he died?

do you honestly think this is a reasonable hypothesis?

 

[Sizzler]

so the hijackers picked up some random bum on the street, hung out with him for a while, then somehow that same bum found his where to the WTC when he died?

do you honestly think this is a reasonable hypothesis?

I'm not making a hypothesis.

I am showing that positive identification is impossible via a process of elimination considering the sources of DNA,ie, a hotel room, rental car, and manhaten (sp??). Those are highly contaminated areas.

 

[Hokulele]

The "Known" simply means it is the reference sample. Good grief, the DOJ posts their DNA procedural guidelines on-line. It really isn't that hard to find, providing you are looking for answers rather than simply trying to interpret people's words to best fit your agenda.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not making a hypothesis.

I am showing that positive identification is impossible via a process of elimination considering the sources of DNA,ie, a hotel room, rental car, and manhaten (sp??). Those are highly contaminated areas.

You are making a hypothesis to justify your claim that positive identification is impossible. However, your hypothesis is that positive identification is impossible if there are additional DNA traces that cannot be eliminated. I'd like to propose a counter-hypothesis (actually I already have, but you haven't satisfactorily addressed it).

Suppose only ten DNA traces were found in hotel rooms and hire cars that could not be identified and eliminated, and ten names were found on hotel registers and car hire documentation. Can we therefore assign, with a reasonable degree of confidence, those ten DNA traces to those ten individuals? In order for a false positive to be recorded, we require two things to have happened:
(1) Some other individual has left DNA traces in both hotel room and hire car. You've come up with a possible explanation of that.
(2) The individual we believe we have identified has left no DNA traces in either the hotel room or the hire car. You have not come up with even a vaguely plausible explanation here. How can one of our suspects drive a hire car and occupy a hotel room without shedding any skin or hair? Gloves while driving might explain lack of skin flakes on the driving wheel, but what about debris and detritus elsewhere in the car?

Remember, we have plenty of time for a very thorough analysis of the scene; the DNA profiles weren't produced until over a year after the attacks. Until you can explain how one or more of the hijackers could have left no DNA traces whatsoever in their hotel room or hire car, then you haven't established your claim.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

This thread is a hoot. Sizzlers debate technique, as shown below

Rational gymnastics gold medal winner

 

[peteweaver]

DNA info about the hijackers is not a conspiracy theory.

I agree this thread belongs in history.

 

[Confuseling]

Or purgatory.

Whether for its sins, or as part of the décor.

 

[Par]

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.

For your hooker or friend false positive scenarios to have happened, all of the following be true:

• They must have recently stayed in the same hotel room as the hijackers.
• They must have recently used the same rental car as the hijackers.
• They must have been killed at the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001.
• They must have somehow been missed when forensics teams were matching DNA Profiles found in the debris against those in their missing persons’ database, or they must have simply never been reported as missing.

Is this a possibility that you take seriously? Please answer this question. Please do not attempt to evade or ignore it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm not making a hypothesis.

I am showing that positive identification is impossible via a process of elimination considering the sources of DNA,ie, a hotel room, rental car, and manhaten (sp??). Those are highly contaminated areas.

If that is truly your standard for evidence, and you apply it impartially to all situations, then nothing will ever meet your standards of evidence. Give up on ever knowing the truth, for there's no way you can be sure of anything, except your own existence. (Perhaps.)

 

[Dave Rogers]

For your hooker or friend false positive scenarios to have happened, all of the following be true:

• They must have recently stayed in the same hotel room as the hijackers.
• They must have recently used the same rental car as the hijackers.
• They must have been killed at the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001.
• They must have somehow been missed when forensics teams were matching DNA Profiles found in the debris against those in their missing persons’ database, or they must have simply never been reported as missing.

At the risk of repeating myself, there's a fifth element required: for there to be the correct number of DNA profiles, one of the hijackers must have left no DNA traces in either the hotel room or the hire car. So far, Sizzler has suggested this could be accomplished by wearing gloves.

Dave

 

[Confuseling]

If that is truly your standard for evidence, and you apply it impartially to all situations, then nothing will ever meet your standards of evidence. Give up on ever knowing the truth, for there's no way you can be sure of anything, except your own existence. (Perhaps.)

Actually in modern Cartesianism I think they even reject the Cogito.

"I think therefore I am" contains this awkward, undefined "I" thing.

"There is thought" is generally considered provable by the subject, though exceptions may be made.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Is not having a family member really a stretch?

Come on now, just walk around the streets at night. People die everyday in America without anyone claiming to have lost anyone.

However --

If the deaths are highly publicized, and the family members stand to collect death benefits if they come forward, I would be willing to bet you would see a lot more blood relatives coming forward and offering DNA samples, or whatever else is requested.

This is exactly why there are a lot of fraudulent missing person reports following big disasters such as 9/11 and Katrina.

(Also, the type of people who would work in an office building are much more likely to have sympathetic family members than a crack whore in Las Vegas.)

 

[aggle-rithm]

Actually in modern Cartesianism I think they even reject the Cogito.

"I think therefore I am" contains this awkward, undefined "I" thing.

"There is thought" is generally considered provable by the subject, though exceptions may be made.

"Something which may or may not be thought is experienced by some agent which may or may not have something called 'intelligence' and which, for the sake of argument, I will call 'me'".

 

[Par]

Actually in modern Cartesianism I think they even reject the Cogito. "I think therefore I am" contains this awkward, undefined "I" thing.

Thinking is happening; therefore there must be a thinker. However, lightning happens, but does that mean that there is a lightninger? I forget who came up with that example.

 

[chillzero]

Philosophy forum ... thataway.

 

[Par]

Philosophy forum ... thataway.

I understand.

However, there is a relevant point to be made here. In order to cast doubt on the hijackers’ identities, Sizzler – as Aggle Rithm has to some degree pointed out – is having to jettison certain rather fundamental empirical and inductivist principles of epistemology – principles without which vast swathes of prosaic criminal investigation become simply impossible.

This is not a level of epistemological strictness that it would seem possible to maintain with any level of consistency. Thus, it looks a lot like an instance of the special pleading fallacy. (Further, even it could be maintained consistently, that still wouldn’t mean that doing so is in any way rational.)