441
DONATIONS
Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

Identifications of hijackers by DNA [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
John Doe II (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-14-04 04:35 PM
Original message
Identifications of hijackers by DNA
Advertisements [?]
I had an interesting discussion with RH on "Please watch ... no big plane" about the possibility of identifying the hijackers by their DNA. As the discussion might interest other and in order not to discuss a topic that basically has nothing to do with the subject of the plane/missile question I decided to open a new thread and to write a short summary for everybody interested.
If anybody wants you can have a look at the discussion so far. It started with post 26 in the other thread.




The identification of the hijackers

Who were the 19 hijackers of 9/11?
This question also involves the problem of identifying the hijackers after their death. A very common way of identifying people after their death is the analysis of their DNA.

The attacks on the WTC:
Examiners were provided DNA profiles of all 10 hijackers. With this help it was possible to identify two hijackers:

“New York medical examiners using DNA samples have identified the remains of two of the 10 suicide hijackers who crashed jetliners into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, officials said Thursday.
The FBI provided the medical examiners' office with DNA profiles of the 10 hijackers, said Ellen Barakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's office.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.re...

But the result nonetheless not absolutely convincing as it was not revealed which two hijackers had been identified positively:

“Examiners could not say
which of the hijackers' remains had been discovered because the FBI
did not identify which of the DNA samples belonged to which hijacker,
she (said Ellen Barakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's office) said.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.re...

Although it’s seems quite surprising that the FBI didn’t want to reveal the two identities at least there has been a small effort to succeed in identifying the hijackers.

Attacks on the Pentagon and the crash in Shanksville:
Pentagon:
“What some experts have called
‘the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history’ ended Nov. 16 with
the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.”
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_47/local_new...

“The remains of the five hijackers have been identified
through a process of exclusion,
as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site. (of the Pentagon)”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic... ¬Found=true

Shanksville:
“The AFIP (Armed Forces Institute of Pathology) (…) provided positive DNA identifications on all 40 Pennsylvania victims,
and developed genetic profiles of the terrorists
that could not be matched to any of the other victims.”
http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/exhibits/911 /

So in both cases the examiners had developed the DNA profiles of the hijackers.

But:
“Genetic profiles of five people from the Pentagon crash scene and
four from the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania,
that did not match any of the passengers' profiles
have been handed over to the FBI, said a spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
The FBI has not given the institute any DNA to match up in those crashes, said the spokesman.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.re...

The whole investigation led to no conclusion.
No results concerning the identity of the hijackers:
“Investigators segregated remains which yielded DNA samples
that did not match DNA profiles of the 40 passengers and crew. Those,
by process of elimination, are the hijackers, and their remains are being grouped by common DNA.
The air pirates have been identified as Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed Al Haznawi, Saeed Al Ghamdi and Ahmed Al Nami –
but not so positively identified

that officials will list the names in official records.
‘The death certificates will list each as
'John Doe,'’
(Somerset County Coroner Wallace) Miller said.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011220shanksvil...

Bu reports after 9/11 strongly give the impression that the FBI looked for DNA, too:
e.g.
Having found Atta’s car the FBI “started looking at the car, careful not to go near it, careful not to touch anything, to maintain the continuity of evidence and in case there was any other evidence, like DNA”.
(Portland Press Herald, 9/16/01)


Which DNA they could have found:

Saeed Alghamdi:
“About a dozen agents were seen carrying garbage bags out of the residence where Saeed Alghamdi was believed to have lived.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.investigation...

Ahmed Alhaznawi:
“Another suspected hijacker, Ahmed Alhaznawi, may have lived at the same building. Residents of the apartment complex told CNN Sunday that authorities had already searched the apartment on Wednesday.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.investigation...

Ziad Jarrah :
The FBI searched through the apartment he shared with Alhaznawi in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea and “seized a green notebook, a videotape, a napkin with Arabic writing on it, several Arabic newspapers that were stuffed between the mattress and the boxsprings and a greeting card, property receipts show.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20011019090410/www.miami.com...
Certainly they could have found a hair as well…
(Moreover Jarrah is known to have had his own car which certainly would be a valuable source for DNA as well. This could have helped to separate Alhaznawi’s from Jarrah’s DNA).


For the six other hijackers it seems quite likely too, that during “the biggest criminal investigation in the history of the USA” the FBI came into possession of anything that could be used in order to determine the DNA profile of the hijackers. (Even if one has to admit that due to the fact that some hijackers always lived together it might be in some cases impossible to know which DNA belongs to which of the hijackers that shared a place to live. But still this would prove that theses hijackers that had lived in this apartment also entered the airplane).


Why did the FBI not release the names of the two hijackers that have been positively identified from Flight 11 or Flight 175 ?
Why did the FBI not give any DNA in order to positively identify hijackers from Flight 77 and Flight 93?
Why is there this apparent lack of interest to identify the hijackers?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  Identifications of hijackers by DNA John Doe II  Oct-14-04 04:35 PM   #0 
   you'd think they'd at least get hair samples from the 7 or so who survived  DuctapeFatwa   Oct-14-04 04:39 PM   #1 
   Good questions  stickdog   Oct-14-04 06:01 PM   #2 
   How do you know  RH   Oct-14-04 09:32 PM   #3 
      You're right. For a second I forgot I was living in a highly secretive  stickdog   Oct-14-04 10:16 PM   #4 
      "No just a...  vincent_vega_lives   Oct-19-04 12:47 PM   #41 
      By your logics  John Doe II   Oct-15-04 03:46 AM   #5 
   The biggest criminal investigation in the US history  John Doe II   Oct-17-04 03:48 PM   #6 
   Just wondering  LARED   Oct-17-04 04:15 PM   #7 
      Well  John Doe II   Oct-17-04 05:10 PM   #8 
         The FBI  RH   Oct-17-04 05:50 PM   #9 
         Not a PR firm  John Doe II   Oct-18-04 03:50 AM   #12 
         not reveal who the guys were?  RH   Oct-18-04 10:47 AM   #17 
         Which Hani?  seatnineb   Oct-18-04 10:01 AM   #16 
            The suspect.  RH   Oct-18-04 02:42 PM   #29 
               Is that the best you can do?  seatnineb   Oct-18-04 04:48 PM   #34 
                  Something hard?  RH   Oct-18-04 08:00 PM   #38 
         Why do you assume DNA is required  LARED   Oct-17-04 06:03 PM   #10 
            DNA  John Doe II   Oct-18-04 03:46 AM   #11 
               Why didn't the FBI bother?  LARED   Oct-18-04 05:52 AM   #13 
                  How?  John Doe II   Oct-18-04 06:33 AM   #14 
                  You positively did not manage to show  RH   Oct-18-04 10:54 AM   #18 
                     Very hard  John Doe II   Oct-18-04 11:20 AM   #20 
                        A probable identification  RH   Oct-18-04 01:03 PM   #24 
                           Why?  John Doe II   Oct-18-04 01:18 PM   #26 
                              why.  RH   Oct-18-04 02:40 PM   #28 
                                 No need.  John Doe II   Oct-18-04 03:10 PM   #30 
                                    100 per cent proof?  RH   Oct-18-04 03:34 PM   #31 
                                       Once again you managed not to answer!  John Doe II   Oct-18-04 03:41 PM   #32 
                                       I am not the issue.  RH   Oct-18-04 06:24 PM   #37 
                                          I'm impressed  John Doe II   Oct-19-04 03:09 AM   #39 
                                       Exactly, RH! The murder of 3,000 Americans wasn't important enough!  stickdog   Oct-19-04 07:08 PM   #46 
                                          Wrong .  RH   Oct-19-04 08:40 PM   #50 
                                             Exactly! It's better not to know!  stickdog   Oct-19-04 09:52 PM   #54 
                                             Running around in circles!  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 04:06 AM   #60 
                                                Who claimed  RH   Oct-20-04 08:36 AM   #61 
                                                   Who was onboard  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 09:19 AM   #68 
                                                   Is it supposed to be making sense?  RH   Oct-20-04 10:41 AM   #73 
                                                   Jesus!  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 10:55 AM   #75 
                                                   No, that is not what they had.  RH   Oct-20-04 11:31 AM   #77 
                                                   Really?  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 12:02 PM   #79 
                                                   These extracts  RH   Oct-20-04 01:13 PM   #80 
                                                   This is interesting  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 01:30 PM   #82 
                                                   I think  RH   Oct-20-04 01:40 PM   #86 
                                                   What's superficial  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 02:01 PM   #89 
                                                   On that I agree  RH   Oct-20-04 02:46 PM   #90 
                                                   What's your aim?  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 03:04 PM   #92 
                                                   Where  RH   Oct-20-04 04:25 PM   #96 
                                                   If you would read my posts  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 04:29 PM   #98 
                                                   So why not try?  RH   Oct-20-04 04:37 PM   #100 
                                                   Just tell me  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 04:43 PM   #102 
                                                   told  RH   Oct-20-04 05:04 PM   #104 
                                                   As you've the habit of not reading my posts  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 04:48 PM   #103 
                                                   So...?  RH   Oct-20-04 05:06 PM   #105 
                                                   Are you really that stupid  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 05:26 PM   #107 
                                                   The stupidity is entirely your own.  RH   Oct-20-04 08:26 PM   #108 
                                                   Last question  John Doe II   Oct-21-04 05:07 PM   #109 
                                                   No. That is most not definitely not I said.  RH   Oct-21-04 06:26 PM   #110 
                                                   Questions and answers  John Doe II   Oct-22-04 03:54 AM   #112 
                                                   Questions and answers  RH   Oct-22-04 05:45 AM   #114 
                                                   Answers and questions  John Doe II   Oct-22-04 04:09 PM   #115 
                                                   The FBI were investigating  RH   Oct-22-04 04:38 PM   #116 
                                                   Investigation  John Doe II   Oct-22-04 04:49 PM   #117 
                                                   There was evidence enough  RH   Oct-22-04 05:45 PM   #118 
                                                   The real world  John Doe II   Oct-22-04 05:56 PM   #119 
                                                   I see no reason to doubt  RH   Oct-22-04 06:20 PM   #120 
                                                   No reason to doubt  John Doe II   Oct-25-04 04:41 PM   #122 
                                                   If  RH   Oct-25-04 08:19 PM   #123 
                                                   The poor journalists  John Doe II   Oct-30-04 08:59 AM   #124 
                                                   I refered to "reporters"  RH   Oct-30-04 11:11 AM   #125 
                                                   Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-30-04 12:08 PM   #126 
                                                   Pictures lie!!!!  tngledwebb   Oct-30-04 12:24 PM   #127 
                                                   I wonder.....  seatnineb   Oct-30-04 12:32 PM   #128 
                                                   Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-30-04 12:37 PM   #129 
                                                   Journalists and/or Reporters  John Doe II   Oct-31-04 06:17 PM   #130 
                                                   and  RH   Oct-22-04 06:31 PM   #121 
                                                   Here's another superficial source  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 04:23 PM   #95 
                                                   So...?  RH   Oct-20-04 04:31 PM   #99 
                                                   Do you have any intention to discuss?  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 04:39 PM   #101 
                                                   See posting #73  RH   Oct-20-04 05:09 PM   #106 
                                                   huh?  RH   Nov-01-04 04:38 AM   #131 
                                                   Hu? Huh?  John Doe II   Nov-01-04 04:44 AM   #132 
                                                   move forward?  RH   Nov-01-04 09:16 PM   #133 
                                                   Are theses supposed to be answsers?  John Doe II   Nov-02-04 03:06 AM   #134 
                                                   What is the point supposed to be?  RH   Nov-02-04 06:19 AM   #135 
                                                   Who is kidding?  medienanalyse   Nov-04-04 04:50 PM   #136 
                                                   How do you know  RH   Nov-04-04 05:25 PM   #137 
                                                   kidding  medienanalyse   Nov-05-04 12:12 PM   #138 
                                                   Unreliable flight manifests vs reliable DNA  John Doe II   Nov-10-04 04:18 PM   #139 
                                                   It is not news  RH   Nov-11-04 10:13 PM   #141 
                                                   Unreliable flight manifests vs reliable DNA II  John Doe II   Nov-12-04 04:29 PM   #143 
                                                   If the Independent Commission can help?  John Doe II   Nov-17-04 04:52 PM   #145 
                                                   Addendum to Hani  John Doe II   Nov-11-04 06:13 PM   #140 
                                                   Where did it say  RH   Nov-11-04 10:29 PM   #142 
                                                   18 hijackers  John Doe II   Nov-12-04 04:30 PM   #144 
                                                   Here is RHs source (article of C. Palmer, ADA)  FannySS   Dec-01-04 12:23 PM   #156 
                  D.N.A of Hani the mutant  seatnineb   Oct-18-04 09:47 AM   #15 
                  How do you identify yourself?  RH   Oct-18-04 11:00 AM   #19 
                     Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-18-04 12:30 PM   #21 
                     wrong?  RH   Oct-18-04 12:43 PM   #23 
                        Another photo.....  seatnineb   Oct-18-04 01:03 PM   #25 
                           and  RH   Oct-18-04 02:25 PM   #27 
                              Great question.........  seatnineb   Oct-18-04 04:28 PM   #33 
                                 Hani was always very special  John Doe II   Oct-18-04 05:30 PM   #35 
                                    One conclusion:  seatnineb   Oct-18-04 06:16 PM   #36 
                                       Je suis absolument d'accord!  John Doe II   Oct-19-04 05:45 AM   #40 
                                          9/11 report lies about Atta's father.  seatnineb   Oct-19-04 03:12 PM   #42 
                                             Proof?  RH   Oct-19-04 07:00 PM   #43 
                                                Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-20-04 03:24 PM   #93 
                     Very comforting  John Doe II   Oct-18-04 12:34 PM   #22 
                     Exactly! It's just not an important enough question to warrant a full  stickdog   Oct-19-04 07:16 PM   #48 
                        A DNA match would not have identified anybody  RH   Oct-19-04 08:47 PM   #51 
                           You're right! It's better not to investigate! (nt)  stickdog   Oct-19-04 09:50 PM   #53 
                           And the answer to the question would be.....?  RH   Oct-20-04 08:52 AM   #65 
                              ....  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 09:23 AM   #70 
                           As I said  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 09:22 AM   #69 
                              Whta is the sense of thuis supposed to be?  RH   Oct-20-04 10:09 AM   #72 
                  Yes, that MUST be the answer. No other interpretation is possible.  stickdog   Oct-19-04 07:03 PM   #44 
                     Who said anything about cost savings?  LARED   Oct-19-04 07:06 PM   #45 
                     Only a hack would defend ignoring critically important forensic evidence,  stickdog   Oct-19-04 07:11 PM   #47 
                     critically important forensic evidence?  LARED   Oct-19-04 07:49 PM   #49 
                        The only "point" you are making is that you are so ridiculous that you'll  stickdog   Oct-19-04 09:58 PM   #55 
                           For the sake of your argument  LARED   Oct-20-04 08:56 AM   #66 
                              What it means is that every week's murders on CSI are investigated  stickdog   Oct-20-04 10:44 AM   #74 
                                 true identities ???????????  LARED   Oct-20-04 11:54 AM   #78 
                                 Yes, careful, exhaustive forensic examination is fiction.  stickdog   Oct-20-04 01:33 PM   #84 
                                 No. That is not what RH argued  RH   Oct-20-04 01:22 PM   #81 
                                    Yes, RH "argued" that DNA matching would be a "waste of time."  stickdog   Oct-20-04 01:37 PM   #85 
                                       So what then did it achieve?  RH   Oct-20-04 02:54 PM   #91 
                                          Did you manage to type that with a straight face, Johnny Cochran?  stickdog   Oct-20-04 03:55 PM   #94 
                                             So what then did it achieve?  RH   Oct-20-04 04:28 PM   #97 
                     So how?  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 03:49 AM   #58 
                        And I already told you  LARED   Oct-20-04 08:59 AM   #67 
                           Fingerprints for example  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 09:30 AM   #71 
                     That is simply not how it works.  RH   Oct-19-04 08:55 PM   #52 
                        Exactly! It just wasn't a priority!  stickdog   Oct-19-04 10:03 PM   #56 
                        Thank you John Doe II and stickdog  medienanalyse   Oct-20-04 03:02 AM   #57 
                        When was the trial?  RH   Oct-20-04 08:44 AM   #63 
                        Since when?  RH   Oct-20-04 08:40 AM   #62 
                           Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-20-04 01:44 PM   #87 
                        Yes, too much work  John Doe II   Oct-20-04 03:51 AM   #59 
                           Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-20-04 08:48 AM   #64 
                           Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-20-04 11:06 AM   #76 
                           Your allegation is perverse.  RH   Oct-20-04 01:31 PM   #83 
                              Your "logic" is perverse. Your "arguments" are tortured. Your credibility  stickdog   Oct-20-04 01:49 PM   #88 
                                 Your answer to my question  RH   Oct-21-04 09:37 PM   #111 
   Identity theft or do you know who you're talking to?  nomatrix   Oct-22-04 04:02 AM   #113 
   The FBI can do their job  John Doe II   Nov-26-04 09:13 AM   #146 
   Why  RH   Nov-28-04 08:09 PM   #149 
      The FBI provided  John Doe II   Nov-29-04 03:44 AM   #151 
         The Armed Forces Institute was not involved  RH   Nov-29-04 09:55 AM   #154 
            Anyway  John Doe II   Nov-29-04 12:09 PM   #155 
   Link to AFIP-Report  FannySS   Nov-28-04 05:44 PM   #147 
   Here you go  John Doe II   Nov-28-04 05:51 PM   #148 
      There must be more.  FannySS   Nov-29-04 02:02 AM   #150 
         The only thing I have  John Doe II   Nov-29-04 03:47 AM   #152 
            I need your email address, post it here or by PN (nT)  FannySS   Nov-29-04 06:28 AM   #153 
   Questions still unanswered!  John Doe II   Jan-26-05 03:59 PM   #157 
   Do you honestly believe that  Democrat Dragon   Jan-29-05 05:08 PM   #158 
      This question  John Doe II   Jan-29-05 07:03 PM   #159 
   Hope  John Doe II   Mar-15-05 05:53 PM   #160 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC