Info about DNA recovery at WTC?

[Sizzler]

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

Your question is fair.

In summary, how could a terrorist use a hotel room and rental car without leaving a trace of DNA?

IMO finding his DNA in just one place and not both is enough to cast reasonable doubt. Thus, IMO, it would only be necessary for him to fail to leave a trace of DNA in a single location, and not both.

So, is it at all common for DNA to not be very traceable, even after a paper trail establishes recent use? Or, is DNA readily available, with a little hard work, in most cases?

First of all I think it is important to establish the following;

DNA identifications are made by comparing DNA profiles from human remains to DNA profiles from reference samples. There are several potential sources of reference samples:

1. personal items used by the victim (e.g., toothbrush, hairbrush, razor) and banked samples from the victim (e.g., banked sperm or archival biopsy tissues stored in a medical facility);
2. biological relatives of the victim (i.e., “blood kin”); and
3. human remains previously identified through other modalities or other fragmented remains already typed by DNA.
http://www.massfatality.dna.gov/Chapter2/

Notice the use of source. Interchange origin and we have the same sentence.

Thus, if we assume the above statement to be true, process of elimination is not sufficient enough to establish DNA source, or origin.

With that said, lets consider the following;

“Cellular material for use as a potential reference sample may be derived from items such as hair, stamps, envelopes, toothbrushes, and razors. However, the use of personal items for reference samples can be problematic because the quantity of DNA that can be isolated is often minimal. In addition, ensuring before testing that only the victim used the item can be difficult”.
http://www.massfatality.dna.gov/Chapter2/

So lets say a we have a terrorist who isn't loosing his hair, or perhaps has a bald head. Only stayed in the hotel a short time. In addition the cleaning lady did a good job cleaning, right after he exited the hotel.

With this in mind, and the quote I provided, I think it is reasonable to assume that a terrorist could have possibly not left a detectable DNA sample to be collected.

In summary, it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that a DNA sample couldn't have been detected in a hotel room or a rental car after terrorist use.

 

[chillzero]

IMO finding his DNA in just one place and not both is enough to cast reasonable doubt. Thus, IMO, it would only be necessary for him to fail to leave a trace of DNA in a single location, and not both.

Finally!!!

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.)

Exactly what I was trying to say, only coherently.

ETA: I've looked through some of Sizzler's posts, and he is for the most part pretty consistent in saying what he doesn't believe rather than what he does. However, he occasionally slips up and says something like this:

On the other hand, if Jones is correct and 9-11 was an inside job, time is critical in bringing the real terrorists to justice before another "false-flag".

He does qualify it by saying IF Jones is correct, but the standards are clearly much more lax here. We can't know for sure that the planes were hijacked because we can't track down the actual birthplace of the remains; but on the other hand, if evidence of thermite is found, we can safely conclude an inside job?

Not so consistent.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

Ah, after your characteristic tap dance, we finally get a substantive claim. You deny the FBI's competence to accomplish the tasks they routinely perform. You are appealing to a new set of principles of forensic science.

You are stating that the DNA found in a hotel room rented by someone with an Arabic-sounding name, found in a car rented by someone using the same Arabic-sounding name, and found at the site of a plane crash, with the same name appearing on the passenger manifest, belongs to an entirely different person. Correct? The FBI is confused, not you? The hooker flew on the doomed plane under the Arabic-sounding name? Do we understand your position?

Or, alternately, the FBI is part of your mathematically-impossible imaginary conspiracy. The bureau merely pretends to solve crimes. The principles of forensic investigation it employs are bogus, but only low-IQ agenda-driven crackpots have figured this out. Will you be informing law-enforcement agencies all over the world that the techniques they employ are useless? Will you explain how you reached this conclusion?

You've laid it out for us. You have determined that when the FBI professes to have solved a crime, it really isn't capable of doing what it claims to do. What will you do with your epochal discovery?

 

[Sizzler]

Ah, after your characteristic tap dance, we finally get a substantive claim. You deny the FBI's competence to accomplish the tasks they routinely perform. You are appealing to a new set of principles of forensic science.

You are stating that the DNA found in a hotel room rented by someone with an Arabic-sounding name, found in a car rented by someone using the same Arabic-sounding name, and found at the site of a plane crash, with the same name appearing on the passenger manifest, belongs to an entirely different person. Correct? The FBI is confused, not you? The hooker flew on the doomed plane under the Arabic-sounding name? Do we understand your position?

Or, alternately, the FBI is part of your mathematically-impossible imaginary conspiracy. The bureau merely pretends to solve crimes. The principles of forensic investigation it employs are bogus, but only low-IQ agenda-driven crackpots have figured this out. Will you be informing law-enforcement agencies all over the world that the techniques they employ are useless? Will you explain how you reached this conclusion?

You've laid it out for us. You have determined that when the FBI professes to have solved a crime, it really isn't capable of doing what it claims to do. What will you do with your epochal discovery?

1. Why does the hooker, or more logically the male friend, have to be on the plane?

2. Who cares about an Arabic sounding name? We know terrorists stayed at certain hotels. The question is, which DNA in the hotel room is his, if any. I've already established that a process of elimination does not equal an identification.

DNA identifications are made by comparing DNA profiles from human remains to DNA profiles from reference samples. There are several potential sources of reference samples:

1. personal items used by the victim (e.g., toothbrush, hairbrush, razor) and banked samples from the victim (e.g., banked sperm or archival biopsy tissues stored in a medical facility);
2. biological relatives of the victim (i.e., “blood kin”); and
3. human remains previously identified through other modalities or other fragmented remains already typed by DNA.
http://www.massfatality.dna.gov/Chapter2/

3. You do realize the FBI labeled the DNA sample as "known" before a comparison was made to WTC dust, right? Be careful of that hindsight fallacy with this one.

Answer those questions and we'll talk.

 

[A W Smith]

I've already established that a process of elimination does not equal an identification.

Do you realize the very first conviction ever in a UK court of law was the result of a process of elimination?

Colin Pitchfork

With no suspect again, the police decided to use DNA testing to their advantage. They set up a voluntary testing for every male living or working in the area at the material times. In 9 months over 4,000 men had their blood and saliva tested. In September 1987, it was discovered that Ian Kelly, a local, had been asked by Pitchfork to have his blood tested, pretending to be Pitchfork, and that several other people had been offered money to do this. Pitchfork was immediately sought out, and confessed to the crimes very swiftly, knowing that any blood test would prove he was the killer.

 

[Sizzler]

Do you realize the very first conviction ever in a UK court of law was the result of a process of elimination?

Colin Pitchfork

Can you summarize the quote for me. I actually don't understand parts of it.

From what I gather, some guy refused to have his DNA tested, and instead confessed to the crime because he knew his DNA would match.

Help me out here.

 

[DGM]

Sizzler:
Why does this all matter? Did the FBI actual convict anyone with this evidence? No they did not. This was only a small piece in a much large pile of information that lead them to name the hijackers that they did.

So I ask you this. Why does this matter? Is it all about debate points?

 

[Disbelief]

1. Why does the hooker, or more logically the male friend, have to be on the plane?

To prove that the DNA found in other places (assuming hotel and rental car, as everyone else has) matches some found at the crash site.

2. Who cares about an Arabic sounding name? We know terrorists stayed at certain hotels. The question is, which DNA in the hotel room is his, if any. I've already established that a process of elimination does not equal an identification.



3. You do realize the FBI labeled the DNA sample as "known" before a comparison was made to WTC dust, right? Be careful of that hindsight fallacy with this one.

Answer those questions and we'll talk.

Did you ever contact the FBI to find out what "known" means? This is very important to your theory, so don't you think you better find out? As an example, "known" could mean that sample A and sample B are known to be from the same person and that this person was in certain places. Now, they want to compare these two samples to determine if they match DNA at the WTC. With this determination, they know that could work out a timeline of where this person was throughout the period they are investigating.

 

[Par]

Can you summarize the quote for me. I actually don't understand parts of it. From what I gather, some guy refused to have his DNA tested, and instead confessed to the crime because he knew his DNA would match. Help me out here.

Sizzler, you seem to have ignored the question in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3669718&postcount=212

Could you answer it please?

 

[pomeroo]

1. Why does the hooker, or more logically the male friend, have to be on the plane?

Based on your incredibly disingenuous performance on this forum to date, I have been assuming that you have been shoveling your trademark product. Possibly you really are obtuse.

The DNA found in the room and on the steering wheel of the rental car shows up at the crash site. What hooker? There is no hooker. You posited a hooker to attempt an evasion. It didn't work.

2. Who cares about an Arabic sounding name? We know terrorists stayed at certain hotels. The question is, which DNA in the hotel room is his, if any. I've already established that a process of elimination does not equal an identification.

For starters, the FBI cares. Law enforcement agencies use a variety of techniques to establish an identity. If the Arabic-sounding name appears in the registry of the hotel, on the rental car documents, and on the passenger manifests--duh--that's a clue! If the same DNA is found in the room, the car, and the wreckage of the plane, what on earth do you think it means?? Can you possibly be serious?

3. You do realize the FBI labeled the DNA sample as "known" before a comparison was made to WTC dust, right? Be careful of that hindsight fallacy with this one.

Answer those questions and we'll talk.

Do you realize that you, a complete know-nothing in matters relating to forensic investigations, are challenging the FBI's methodology? Why don't you call the bureau and tell them about your discoveries? Are they blunderers or accomplices? You never quite get around to answering this question.

How does the FBI determine that a sample is "known"? What criteria do they use? It's high time you explained what you actually know about the subject.

 

[Tweeter]

Here is my theory. You're a moron.

Hmmm...
Mods , why is it ok for some to openly insult while others get there remarks deleted. Ive had multiple posts taken down for much less.

 

[HyJinX]

Hmmm...
Mods , why is it ok for some to openly insult while others get there remarks deleted. Ive had multiple posts taken down for much less.

I received a yellow card for my remarks. I stand by my theory, however.

 

[LastChild]

Let's see now. How many hijackers have you guys positively identified yet?

Ziltch?

tsk tsk

 

[Par]

Let's see now. How many hijackers have you guys positively identified yet?

Remember, it isn’t us who want a new investigation.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

From what I gather, some guy refused to have his DNA tested, and instead confessed to the crime because he knew his DNA would match.

Help me out here.

You missed the part where they snatched him up before he confessed...

 

[pomeroo]

Let's see now. How many hijackers have you guys positively identified yet?

Ziltch?

tsk tsk

Nineteen. It was in most of the papers.

 

[Sizzler]

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.

Thanks for the reminder. I read this and then was distracted by the all the other replies.

Your question is fair and I have an answer.

While it is possible, I do not consider it likely. However, this does not nullify my criticism. Let me explain.

The FBI claims to have obtained 10 "known" DNA samples of the terrorists before any comparison made to the WTC remains. This I have argued, is impossible without a positive identification.

Consider the following 2 quotes, and notice the use of origin and source respectively.

“Eventually (more than a year after the request) we received a one-page letter from the FBI containing ten coded STR profiles, presumably those of the terrorists. No names, just a K code, which is how the FBI designates “knowns,” or specimens it knows the origin of. These K’s had no names. We were certain these were the terrorists’ STR profiles, but there was nothing to identify them as such. Of course, we had no direct knowledge of how the FBI obtained the terrorists DNA.”
* Who They Were, Inside the World Trade Center DNA Story: The Unprecedented Effort To Identify The Missing – page 300

So the FBI passed

DNA identifications are made by comparing DNA profiles from human remains to DNA profiles from reference samples. There are several potential sources of reference samples:

1. personal items used by the victim (e.g., toothbrush, hairbrush, razor) and banked samples from the victim (e.g., banked sperm or archival biopsy tissues stored in a medical facility);
2. biological relatives of the victim (i.e., “blood kin”); and
3. human remains previously identified through other modalities or other fragmented remains already typed by DNA.
http://www.massfatality.dna.gov/Chapter2/

I think it is fair to assume that origin and source are being used as synonyms. Yet, hotel rooms and rental cars do not make the list. They are EXTREMELY contaminated. This immediately raises reasonable doubt and thus, does not make the list. In fact, it is a pretty strict list if you really take a look at it (look at my bolding of "and"). These are positive matches.

IMO this demonstrates that "known" DNA samples cannot be identified as such, based on the above two quotes, via a process of elimination.

There are several scenarios, including the one you presented, that could raise reasonable doubt.

This means the 10 samples are void evidence. They don't even have chain of custody papers.

As such, any conclusions made, using the 10 samples is also void. Because they were labeled as "knowns" and we know this is impossible, they become too suspicious, creating reasonable doubt of any conclusions determined in hindsight.

The fact remains that they were already "knowns", before WTC remain analysis. And from the quotes I have provided, having a "known" via process of elimination, is simply impossible.

 

[LastChild]

Remember, it isn’t us who want a new investigation.

Remember, it is you who claim the hijackers were positively identified but can't even begin to show how.

 

[pomeroo]

Remember, it is you who claim the hijackers were positively identified but can't even begin to show how.

Normally, a person making that statement would be scolded for failing to understand that the people who post here didn't identify the hijackers: a massive, multi-agency investigation did. In your case, well...