Info about DNA recovery at WTC?

[pomeroo]

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.



So the FBI passed



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.

You have wasted all these pages displaying your characteristic bumptious arrogance and you just don't get the idea that you know nothing about forensic investigations. You keep babbling nonsense, without any clue. If you think that the techniques used by law enforcement agencies are invalid, announce your discovery to the media. At the moment, you are making a fool of yourself.

 

[twinstead]

Yes. the revelations presented by sizzler affect more than just 911. This is a fundamental critique of current DNA testing procedure.

Sizzler is a freakin' hero. I foresee major changes in law enforcement.

Or maybe not.

 

[Sizzler]

Yes. the revelations presented by sizzler affect more than just 911. This is a fundamental critique of current DNA testing procedure.

Sizzler is a freakin' hero. I foresee major changes in law enforcement.

Or maybe not.

No.

I am implying that the FBI didn't follow proper procedure. I am not criticizing DNA testing procedure; I am criticizing the FBI's claim that they had DNA samples of the terrorists. Within proper procedure, it is impossible for the FBI to have "knowns" via a supposed process of elimination.

 

[A W Smith]

No.

I am implying that the FBI didn't follow proper procedure. I am not criticizing DNA testing procedure; I am criticizing the FBI's claim that they had DNA samples of the terrorists. Within proper procedure, it is impossible for the FBI to have "knowns" via a supposed process of elimination.

So the FBI called you back and admitted this?

 

[johnny karate]

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

You keep forgetting to say "NEXT".

It's rather important to your argument because it reminds us how awesome you are.

 

[tsig]

No.

I am implying that the FBI didn't follow proper procedure. I am not criticizing DNA testing procedure; I am criticizing the FBI's claim that they had DNA samples of the terrorists. Within proper procedure, it is impossible for the FBI to have "knowns" via a supposed process of elimination.

If only you knew what "knowns" are then you would know what others know.

 

[tsig]

So the FBI called you back and admitted this?

All sizzle, no steak.

 

[Confuseling]

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[Disbelief]

No.

I am implying that the FBI didn't follow proper procedure. I am not criticizing DNA testing procedure; I am criticizing the FBI's claim that they had DNA samples of the terrorists. Within proper procedure, it is impossible for the FBI to have "knowns" via a supposed process of elimination.

For about the hundredth time in this thread, contact the FBI. You make assertions about their procedures, but you have not demonstrated that you understand them. You act like the word origin means from a known person, when it could mean from a known location.

 

[Sizzler]

For about the hundredth time in this thread, contact the FBI. You make assertions about their procedures, but you have not demonstrated that you understand them. You act like the word origin means from a known person, when it could mean from a known location.

Lets consider this logically.

If one were to use a k-code for DNA that they know the origin (place it came from), what does that mean for DNA that doesn't get that code?

Does the FBI have DNA samples that they don't know the origin (place it came from)?

Does DNA magically appear in their labs? Some the know the origin (place found), and some they don't.

Think about it for a second.

Origin means, the person it came from. Not the place they found it.

 

[DGM]

Lets consider this logically.

If one were to use a k-code for DNA that they know the origin (place it came from), what does that mean for DNA that doesn't get that code?

Does the FBI have DNA samples that they don't know the origin (place it came from)?

Does DNA magically appear in their labs? Some the know the origin (place found), and some they don't.

Think about it for a second.

Origin means, the person it came from. Not the place they found it.

Why don't you ask them?

 

[Disbelief]

Lets consider this logically.

If one were to use a k-code for DNA that they know the origin (place it came from), what does that mean for DNA that doesn't get that code?

Does the FBI have DNA samples that they don't know the origin (place it came from)?

Does DNA magically appear in their labs? Some the know the origin (place found), and some they don't.

Think about it for a second.

Origin means, the person it came from. Not the place they found it.

Why would you think about anything logically, considering your massive leaps in your opening post? Obviously, you still don't get it. Sample A (from hotel) is the same as Sample B (from the car). See, they are known to be from the same person, from two different locations, and they want to determine if this known DNA was found at the WTC.

Guess what, I could be wrong and you could be right. However, you have once again failed, as so many in the TM have, because you will not contact the proper authorities, Why won't you do this Sizzler?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Lets consider this logically.

Surely, the logical thing to do would be ask the party in question what they actually mean by the naming convention they have chosen.

 

[Par]

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.

Your question is fair and I have an answer. While it is possible, I do not consider it likely... There are several scenarios, including the one you presented, that could raise reasonable doubt.

So, the scenario that I have detailed above is one that you take seriously. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to know.

 

[Par]

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.

Even if that were true, I don’t need to. I already have what I want.

 

[A W Smith]

Lets consider this logically.

If one were to use a k-code for DNA that they know the origin (place it came from), what does that mean for DNA that doesn't get that code?

Does the FBI have DNA samples that they don't know the origin (place it came from)?

Does DNA magically appear in their labs? Some the know the origin (place found), and some they don't.

Think about it for a second.

Origin means, the person it came from. Not the place they found it.

FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Call (202) 324-3000
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm

 

[pomeroo]

No.

I am implying that the FBI didn't follow proper procedure.

Wrong. If you were merely fabricating a nonsensical, bogus charge typical of the angry, low-IQ adolescents who consitute the bulk of the fantasy movement, we could laugh at your ar-ig (arrogant ignorance) and move on. Who, after all, are you to discuss "proper procedure" in a criminal investigation? What the hell do you know? You are saying, in effect, that the FBI's methodology is inadequate to the task of identifying the hijackers. You are arguing that when a law enforcement agency announces that it has cracked a case, we should challenge the principles it operates by and insist that it is not possible to identify perps.

I am not criticizing DNA testing procedure; I am criticizing the FBI's claim that they had DNA samples of the terrorists. Within proper procedure, it is impossible for the FBI to have "knowns" via a supposed process of elimination.

But, again, you know absolutely nothing about the science of criminology. The FBI assigned SEVEN THOUSAND agents to the investigation of the jihadist attacks. Either the bureau is part of your imaginary, mathematically-impossible conspiracy or it performed its duties. The FBI has acknowledged that it is unable, so far, to identify the person(s) who sent anthrax to public figures. Clearly, the bureau doesn't routinely claim successes it hasn't achieved. Although a massive multi-agency investigation commenced within hours of the 9/11 attacks, the FBI couldn't state definitively that the hijackers had been identified until November.

Are you seriously claiming that the FBI violated its own procedures, but only complete know-nothings are aware of that fact? Why does the FBI think it can differentiate the hijackers' DNA from that of random persons? Do you have any interest whatever in the answer? Do you ever intend to make an honest attempt to answer your questions?

 

[Sizzler]

FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Call (202) 324-3000
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm

Thanks for the link.