Identifications of hijackers by DNA

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.remains/index.html

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.remains/index.html

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_news/12303-1.html

“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=article&node=&contentId=A61202-2001Nov20¬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.remains/index.html

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/20011220shanksville1220p2.asp

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.terrorism/index.html

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.terrorism/index.html

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/herald/special/news/worldtrade/digdocs/046328.htm
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?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.remains/index.html

Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, professor of forensics at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, believes the discovery is "extremely significant."

"This is the first confirmation that these individuals were on those planes. Now we have their genetics, we can use this information to follow them. Perhaps we can hook them to other individuals," Kobilinsky said.

Examiners requested the profiles from the FBI last summer and received them "a few weeks ago," said Barakove.

"We meet with family groups every so often," said Barakove, "and they raised the possibility of attaining the hijackers' profiles from the FBI."


*****


1) This whole line of "investigation" was driven by the families.

2) The FBI doesn't seem even remotely interested in following up on these results.

3) The families of the hijackers would likely supply the FBI with the DNA of close relatives in exchange for the positively identified remains of their loved ones. Why hasn't this exchange been proposed? Why doesn't the FBI give a damn about positively identifying these men?

what was or was not proposed?

totalitarian state.

highly paranoid fantasy state."

Jus' kidden' boss. ;)

I think the questions are cristal clear on the table so why not lets discuss them instead of asking to prove something that didn't happen?
If you can prove that it happened then we all will be happy to know otherwise the question is completely senseless. Or shall we start discussing if a fifth airplane crashed in the Nevada desert and a sixth one drowned in the Missouri? You don't believe it happened then prove it! Really I don't think your question is substantial. So why not try to challenge the questions raised in this thread by showing that the FBI tried to find DNA. That the apartments of the hijackers were completely disinfectionized so nothing could be used as DNA. Even their cars. Even the hotel rooms. Not a hair left of them. Then lets talk about it.

No flight manifest has been publicly released.
No boarding cards with fingerprints has been publicly released.
No video footage of hijackers boarding the doomed flights has been publicly released. (Btw the one of Dulles which has been released three years later. Can anybody identify a hijacker there. Seatnineb, let's talk about Hani's transformation!)
And no positive identification with DNA.
Is there anything that has been publicly released that proves that theses guys have been on theses planes?
Seen in this light:
What kind of investigation is that if the FBI simply doesn't bother to give any DNA?????

Has the FBI changed what information is publicly released in a criminal investigation for the 9/11 investigation?

I have to admit I am not familiar with the protocols the FBI follows, but based on what your expectations seem to be, you seem to think something is different from other investigations.

Well, I'm not familiar with FBI protocols but don't you find it a bit odd that the FBI apparently has DNA samples but doesn't bother to give them so the hijackers could be identified positivly?

is a criminal investigative agency, not a PR firm. So how then in terms of investigating a crime would the DNA concern arise? How would it help with what was already established beyond doubt and in what sense would any publicity then assist with their enquiries? And is there in any case a good reason why the FBI should be more concerned with dead suspects rather than live ones?

Seeing no reason whatsoever for the FBI to doubt the connection between the suspects' previous activities and their presence on Flight 77 I see nothing odd in them not pusuing that
aspect. On the contrary, if the FBI had especially pursued that line of enquiry you may just as well asking why they did so, if the case was already supposed to be clear, as if to show that the very investigation betrayed a doubt.

I find it quite surprising you call te positive identification of the hijackers somehow the task of a PR firm. Moreover can you please point me out how the identities of the hijackers (so the ones actually on board) has been established beyound a doubt??
Why does the FBI give samples for the WTC flights and then not reveal who the guys were? Why going through all the trouble to find DNA right after 911 and then not give them to the Institute. Excuse me, this is not a hell a lot of work.
Why go for circumstantial evidence if you easily can obtain hard evidence?

The names of the suspects, the names at least that had been in use, were published from the start. How come you missed it?

They bought tickets. They payed bills. Previous movements were known. They got on the planes. They were seen to do so, checked in by airport staff, nothing circumstantial about it.

So where and how then would a doubt arise? Strangely enough the suspects have not since been seen alive and never yet did we see anything close to a realistic suggestion as to who else the people aboard the Flights would have been if not as desciribed by the FBI.

People are not usually identified by DNA. People are identified primarily by their own claim to exist, hence their social activity, significant pieces of paper and other peoples' recognition of them, considerations that applied to the supects much the same as to anybody else. DNA analysis does nothing other than to circumstantially confirm such an existence.

RH.....

Lets see you.....

Figure this out........

Will the F.B.I care to emlighten us how this Hani.........



.....did the following..........

Only Hani Hanjour, believed to have been the hijacker who piloted Flight 77, passed through Dulles security that morning WITHOUT BEING SUBJECTED TO A SECONDARY SECURITY CHECK, according to the video."
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040722/D83VUFI00.htm...

........whilst this Hani.......



........had an altogether different experience.......

"This person goes through the metal detection machine and IT STARTS BUZZING........."
"THEY CALL THE PERSON OUT SO THEY CAN DO THE HAND SEARCH.Just as the person was BEGINNING to do that, a pretty woman walks by and the guard looks at her and waves the guy on.Well,that person happened to be Hani Hanjour,and he basically had box cutters and razor blades in his pockets."
This is the testimony of Vincent Cannistraro(Ex-C.I.A).

The above excerpt can be found in:
Masterminds Of Terror.
By Nick Fielding And Yosri Fouda.
Published By Mainstream Publishing.
Page 143.

The one known to have associated with the other suspects.

Come on RH....

Hit me with somethin hard....

Witnesses.

If you want to know what Hanjour looked like, ask the people who saw him.

In the mean time I see no issue, just of a useless lot of empty speculative option, tainted with prejudice.

If a first hand witness were to say that the guy in the security video could not be Hanjour, maybe then you'd be hitting hard.

In the mean time, for as long as none of them are saying that the guy in the security video could not be Hanjour its good enough for me.

to positively identify them?

DNA is one possibility to positivily identify somebody (you just need a hair or basically onle a cell of the human body) to have something to match too.
The point is the identification wasn't done although the FBI had samples.
Another way would have been to compare fingerprints (eg in Jarrah's car with the boarding card) I've no record whatsoever that this was done.
So, question remains: Why didn't the FBI bother?

Can't say for sure as only they know. But here is a guess.

They were already positively identifed through some other means.

I believe that I managed to show in my first post that the FBI had DNA and that they didn't give it. So there was no positive identification.
You guess that "they were already positively identified through some other means".

Through which mean could that be?
Why is there no article (or did I miss something) that states the positiv identification?
Why does then figure "John Doe" on their death certicificat?

that any DNA sample the FBI had was itself positively identified.

It is only possible to positively identify somebody from a DNA match to the extent that the sample you match to is positively identified to begin with.

Is the point really so hard to grasp?

Yes, it's very hard to grasp.
Which of the examples is not convincing for you?
If you search Jarrah's car. Tell me the probability you don't find a hair! If you search somebody's apartment tell me the probability you don't find anything you could use for the DNA?
The FBI didn't give any DNA. Hence nobody could be positively identified. You simply turn around in circles in explaining why the FBI didn't give the DNA! Why didn't they even give it a try????

is not a positive identification.

It goes around in circles because you have yet to explain how a DNA match would have helped the FBI. With no shortage of things to find out that were not already known you have yet to give any practical reason as to why any time would be wasted to confirm what was already known.

Did you ever do a jigsaw puzzle? The usual technique is to find pieces that fit together so as then to work out where the loose pieces are going to fit. As soon as a piece does fit, you leave it where it is. There is otherwise no hope to get anywhere.

It turns arund in circles because you don't want to answer a simple question:

Why didn't the FBI give the DNA they had?
If you say they didn't have then please explain me how you cannot find DNA in a car or in an apartment?

There was no need.


:eyes: OK?

Then please enlighten me.
Please give me definite proofs that tell us the identity of the hijackers.

BTW You don't have to scream.
It's kind of funny logic. First the FBI searches for DNA and then they don't give it the Institute. Because. Well, RH, THERE IS NO NEED. It's very obvious.

I'm really keen to see your 100% proofs.

And BTW if there was no need why then match the DNA of hijackers that crashed in the WTC just in order not to reveal their identity. Oh yes, I see, there was no need....!
Because of the irrefutable proof of the identity of the hijackers.
Please, enlighten me!

100 per cent proof of what and what for?

I have no idea of what this DNA obsession would hope to achieve, nor of what you think the point would be. You have failed absolutely to show who or why anybody but the suspects would have been aboard the Flights. There is nobody else to account for. If DNA samples found elsewhere by the FBI were not identified then the matching of the samples would not possibly have helped to positively identify anybody aboard the aircraft.


There was a wicked messenger
From Eli he did come,
With a mind that multiplied
The smallest matter.
When questioned who had sent for him,
He answered with his thumb,
For his tongue it could not speak, but only flatter.

He stayed behind the assembly hall,
It was there he made his bed,
Oftentimes he could be seen returning.
Until one day he just appeared
With a note in his hand which read,
"The soles of my feet, I swear they're burning."

Oh, the leaves began to fallin'
And the seas began to part,
And the people that confronted him were many.
And he was told but these few words,
Which opened up his heart,
"If ye cannot bring good news, then don't bring any."

Well, maybe this one:
If you can't offer a hundred percent proof of the identity of the hijackers would you please explain why then there was no need to try to match the DNA? No need for the FBI to give the DNA to the Institute?

The issue is the activity of the FBI, whether or not the FBI had any need for further proof. I do not work for the FBI.

The idea that FBI had some sort of need for "100 percent" proof is entirely bogus, a preposterously contrived argument. You have provided nothing at all to show such a need. Nobody of any significance, nobody to worry the FBI had doubted that the suspects were aboard the aircraft. There was therefore no need to bother. Was that not evident enough? If not please tell us where, for as far as the FBI were concerned, the matter was contested. Why make any more of it than that?

It is my guess that FBI agents were well aware of the hijackers as suspects before 9/11. That is possibly why Atta ran off to Portland on 9/10; in Boston the spooks were already hot on his tail.

Your way of argumentation is really very impressive.
You admit that you don't know about any 100% of the identity of the hijackers. At the same time you claim that there was no need for the FBI to give DNA they already had (which would mean not a lot of work) and all this because I DONT know what the FBI knew because they might have had a 100% proof I don't know about.
I'm impressed:
You explain the absence of urgency of the FBI to try a 100% identification by your trust in the FBI!

You state its your "guess that FBI agents were well aware of the hijackers as suspects before 9/11". Certainly they were otherwise how do you explain that in the night alreday Huffman Aviation was searched. But unfortunately this doesn't prove anything. The fact that the FBI was aware of suspects does not reduce their OBLIGATION to get the PROOF that theses guys were onboard!

And talking about your trust:
How come the brothers Bukhari were suspected hijackers on 911?? (One of them already dead the other one in Florida without having bought a ticket)
How come Hani was not suspect until September 14 although he had a ticket??
Rather strange, isn't it.
Maybe think about your trust in the FBI and that trust is certainly no reason to write in bold letters that the FBI had no need of DNA analysis.
As long as there is not the slightest proof theses guys were on the plane it the strange lack of interest by the FBI concerning the DNA leaves one simply wondering.

We all know exactly who did it because of the way you, the FBI and the corporate media all waved their hands in the air!

Why worry about messy evidence? It's like people who ask for a voter verified paper trail. Why worry about that when everybody knows that nobody would ever try to rig an election and that computers never make mistakes?

Because of stolen identities there is not and never was a great deal of surety, nor did I notice that the FBI ever pretended otherwise.

If then there was no surety as to who a discovered DNA sample had belonged to how would it help to match it to anything?

Why even seek "surety" when investigating is sooooo hard?

RH, you're really amazing!

First you say there was NO NEED for any DNA analysis.
Asked how the hijackers were already identified positively you fail to give an answer. Then I point out because of any absence of proof there is a need of DNA analysis. Now you come back with an old argument, you wonder if there was
"surety as to who a discovered DNA saple belonged".....
Jesus, I've answered this already.

1.) First very simple one: Why not at least give it a try if the FBI already had samples? Best example for the WTC two are positively identified but the FBI withholds the name. Any idea why?

2.) Apartments where two hijackers lived together: Here the problem can occur that you find two different DNA and you don't know who is who. But at least then you could PROVE that theses two guys were on the plane!

3.) There are some examples where it's definite that you find the DNA of the owner e.g. Jarrah's car. (he was the owner of the Mitsubishi). Or Alhaznawi's and Alghamdi's apartment.

So instead of running around in circles:
Either show us a proof that there was NO NEED for a DNA analysis. Or that a DNA analysis was impossible.
Otherwise simply admit that AT LEAST it was worth a try or admit you don't know yourself.

that any of the hijacker rtemains were positively identified. Where does that idea come from? Who here is running around in circles?

An assertion of a need is not proved by any absense of a proof to show that there was not a need. The notion is a logical fallacy. The matters were for the FBI and according the usual practoce of jurisprudence it falls to you to prove any charge of malpractice, not vise versa. You have failed even to demonstrate that such a DNA matching would be the normal practice with no precedent nor any rule to that effect to cite.

The gist of all this would nevertheless appear to be to hope to show that something sinister is indicated by the circumstance. Wehther or not it would have been nice for everything on the Planet to be 100 percent well ordered is not in dispute. So where then is the foundation for your inference?

I see none. In much the same way is there any need for the argument or from the start was there no way that it was ever going to prove anyhting? Where is your evidence?

From where please does this spurious idea of the FBI withholding a name come from? The same point continues to apply; if a DNA sample was not positively identified as belonging to anybody it would not thus assist to identify whatever it was matched to. So because of what then do you assume that any sample was identifiable to such an extent to begin with? The idea that the ownership of a car would positively identify anything within it is patently absurd. Anybody could have been in the car at any time.

I did ask before but I never saw an answer. For as far as the FBI were concerned, who doubted that any of the suspects were aboard the aircraft?

Based on what do you say that the hijackers were onboard. Were they on the flight manifest? Well, I haven't seen it. Butu what i've seen is that thhis flight manifest is not very trustworthy at least this is what the brothers Bukhari think (well, one couldn't think because he was dead) as for two days they were believed to have been hijackers. Explain why it took five days till Hani was declared a hijacker. Why did the FBI one week after the attacks state that they are not completely sure about the identities of the hijackers...
Every time I ask you on what proofs the FBI based their assumption you simply don't know. So why do we discuss? You simply believe everything the FBI tells you. You simply don't bother if they do have any proofs.

Btw
I never said that all DNA in Jarrah's car belongs to him. But excuse me it's fairly reasonable to assume that there was his DNA to be found in his car.
Just for you: I just put the way around: was any of the hijackers DNA that the Institute to be found in Jarrah's car or in one of the hijackers apartment?


Btw.
The FBI gave two samples to match with the DNA found at WTC. So I think the FBI found the DNA not in a random restaurant in DAllas (why then shoould they ask for matching it) but e.g. in an apartment of two hijackers. So as the DNA matched then you do know that you identify two hijackers. You don't know who is who of the two but you have positively identified two hijackers. So this means you have the names

I saw no manifest with the names of passengers on it, just press reports often with some of the names missing. Does that mean that some or all the passengers were not on board?

I did see reports of the seat numbers of the suspects. Where did those come from if not from a manifest? If they invented the seat numbers what then would prevent the invention of a false manifest?

:crazy:

Whether or not it would be worthwile to seek a DNA match would presumably depend upon the circumstance, the estimated probabilty of a good match. Without knowing all the details it is reckless to presume to judge the issue. With a huge number of remains to identify I doubt that a scatter serach approach would be at all feasible. If for the sake of argument you've got 10000 unidentified remains to match to 3000 samples, how many matches do you then have to test? Millions.

And if then you do not know who is who of two hijacers then you have definitely not positively identified either one of the two hijackers. An identity by definiton is something that belongs to an indivual. That happens to be what the word means:

1. the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity; "you can lose your identity when you join the army"
2. exact sameness; "they shared an identity of interests"
3. the individual characteristics by which a thing or person is recognized or known; "geneticists only recently discovered the identity of the gene that causes it"; "it was too dark to determine his identity"; "she guessed the identity of his lover"
4. an operator that leaves unchanged the element on which it operates; "the identity under numerical multiplication is 1"

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/identity

You've the DNA of four hijackers from Flight 93 from the Institute. Shouldn't be too hard to grasp that you can search for the matching in Jarrah's car. Isn't too difficult to grasp, is it? Then you go to the different apartments of the hijackers and try to match again.

If the flight transcript (that nobody has seen so far) is unreliable then how can you know who was onboard for sure?

Seats? Ever realized that the seat numbers (only given for Flight 11 after 911) differed in newspaper accounts after 911. That they differed even in the discription between Ong and Sweeney.

So on what do you base your trust in the FBI?

What they had was hundreds, maybe thousands of immediately unidentifiable pieces of mince meat with nothing to show, before detailed analysis, whether or not they came from passengers, crew or hijackers. About one third of the passengers' remains at the Pentagon were not even identified by DNA. Because of the fire they did not even have that much to go on.

Newspaper accounts are not always accurate. They are written in a hurry to meet deadlines. What else is new?

“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 /


That's what they had. And I've written in my FIRST post.
If you claim this is not true then prove it:

are from an article written by Craig Palmer. It used to be on the ada.org website. The web link is now defunct but I kept the text.
DU copyright rules prevent me from quoting the entire article. If you wish for more detailed information perhaps Mr. Palmer himself may assist.


Today's News Oct. 19, 2001

Military dentists play 'critical role' in identifying Pentagon victims

Washington — In the grim rush to identify Sept. 11 Pentagon victims, with commercial planes grounded, the Department of Defense dispatched dental records cross-country overnight by military aircraft.

Three weeks into the mission, dental identifications "were performed" in more than 63 percent of the cases investigated by dental and other forensic specialists and in 30 percent served as the sole method of identification, a spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology told the ADA News.

...... <snip>


Military active duty and reserve dentists "played a critical role" in helping identify victims of the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. Eight AFIP military officers, five staff oral pathologists and three oral pathology residents formed the core investigative staff at Dover AFB, joined by one oral pathologist each from the National Naval Dental Center in Bethesda, Md., and the Portsmouth, Va., naval hospital.

An additional 43 support personnel included nine dentists and 19 dental technicians from the Dover AFB 436th Dental Flight and six dentists and nine dental technicians from the Keesler AFB, Miss., 81st Dental Squadron.

......... <snip>

For the first five days of casualty identification, the dental units worked 12-hour shifts, completing an average 22 examinations a day, said AFIP's spokesman. Dental teams stood by for relief but weren't called. "We were able to complete our assignment with the designated personnel," Col. Pemble said.

But what do you think about my post 79?

that your investigation is superficial.

Before leaping to any imputation consult the primary sources, the people actually involved.

I give a statement. I give a quote and you?
Youo don't even bother to answer you just give a superficial statement based on NOTHING.
So would you mind to react towards post 79. Something I've already quoted in my first post otherwise it's really senseless to discuss with you.

Your discussion is senseless.

Maybe you should find somebody to waste the time on.

Bye Bye.

You stated that there was NO NEED for a DNA analysis.
Then you failed to give reasons why it wasn't needed.

You then stated that the Institute didn't have DNA samples of the hijackers from Flight 93. I gave a quote stating that they had them. And now instead of challenging my quote or reacting to it you avoid twice any answer (once writing about Flight 77) and blaming me of being of SUPERFICIAL!

did anybody state that the Institute did not have DNA samples of the hijackers from Flight 93?

:shrug:

In #77 I refer to the Pentagon.

In my post 79 I'm clearly talking about Flight 93. You introduced Flight 77. I hinted back at my post 79 but instead of answering you call me superficial!
Ok anyway. You see: two proofs the Institute had created samples of the hijackers. So why not try and check out if you find someting in Jarrah's car or his apartment that does match? (No, not necesseraly all DNA in his car or his apartment are from him but certainly some not to say the mainpart). So should be worth a try, no?

answered in #73

If you have Jarrah's DNA then you certainly should find it in his car and his apartment. And guess what the FBI searched his car and his apartment.
SO WHY NOT COMPARE THEM

If you can identify two hijackers but not distinguish between them because they lived together isn't this already a big step forward to proof that theses guys were on the plane?

in #73

Without any further details of what was or not actually the case it is reckless to speculate.

In my first post you find:

“The remains of the five hijackers have been identified
through a process of exclusion,
as they did not match DNA samples http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic... ¬Found=true

So conclusevily the DNA profiles of the hijackers were established.

What is your point?

I'd thought hat you were complaing that the supects' DNA was somehow excluded from investigation.

Are you now complaining that it was not excluded?

The Institute established (contrary to what you've said btw) in the case of Flight 77 and 93 the DNA profiles of the hijackers. So why not go to the apartment and the car of Jarrah and try to match them.
PLEASE EXPLAIN ME HOW IN JARRAH'S CAR AND IN HIS APARTMENT THERE SHALL BE NO DNA OF HIM! Did he disinfect his apartment? Prove it. Otherwise as in all normal apartment on the planet you'll find his DNA. If it matchs good for you. If it doesn't you've a problem.

WHY DIDN'T THE FBI TRY?


Just for a change answer once a question.

And btw it's kind of unpolite to call me superficial and everything if it's YOU who didn't read my post. And you don't even bother that I proved that for Flight 77 there were DNA profiles as well.

Your points were all answered in previuos postings while my questions were not.

Nobody ever said that there would be no DNA in Jarrah's car. The question is whether or not it could possibly have been positively identified as such. The notion would appear to be entirely your own personal fantasy. You have shown nothing at all to confirm that this was positively the case.

Neither did I see that anybody ever said that there were no DNA profiles established at the Pentagon. What was stated, with a reference supplied to back it up was that 30 per cent of the remains were not thus identified.

RH, you claimed that the FBI established beyond doubt the identity of the hijackers (see your post 9, 37 and 61) and that therefore there was NO NEED to do a DNA analysis (post 28). Yet you failed to show ANYTHING that proves the identity of the hijackers onboard.
You claim that the names of the suspected were published right from the start (post 17). Yet you fail to explain why Hani Hanjour was only put on the FBI list on September 18, 2001. And you fail as well to explain why the brothers Bukhari were suspected hijackers till September 13.
But nonetheless you don’t bother about the possibility of identifying the hijackers with their DNA.
OK From the start:

On the one hand you’ve got the hijackers from Flight 11 and 175.
“The FBI provided the medical examiners' office with DNA profiles of the 10 hijackers”.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.re...

Now, let’s have a look at Flight 77:
“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...

So we can conclude that the Institute had developed the DNA profiles of the hijackers.

Now, let’s have a look at Flight 93:
“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 /
(Jere Longman : Among the Heroes, p. 363)

So here as well the Institute had developed the DNA profiles of the hijackers.


Apparently the FBI managed to get DNA samples from the hijackers of Flight 11 and 175 by searching their apartments and their cars etc. (This does not neceassrily mean that they knew the identity of each DNA as it might have been possible that two hijackers spend so much time together that you couldn’t say who was who. But you could still say for sure that these two guys were two suspected hijackers.) The FBI capability in New York to present the DNA of the hijackers shows that this is possible and not only a product of my “own personal fantasy”.

What happened in the case of Flight 77 and Flight 93?
“The FBI has not given the institute any DNA to match up in those crashes”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.re...

So, why is the FBI not capable of providing the Institute with DNA if this was possible in New York ?
This lack of interest is rather strange. This question is the suspected hijackers really boarded the plane is essential to 911 and certainly should have been of interest in the biggest criminal investigation of the US.

Wasn’t it possible to get DNA?
Let’s take e. g. Ziad Jarrah. He had his own car and lived in his own apartment (in Venice he is even supposed to have lived in two). So having only 4 different DNA samples from the Institute the simple first question is:
Do I find one of theses 4 samples in the car and in his apartment as well?
Is it possible that although there is no DNA from Jarrah in his apartment and in his car?
No, as it would imply that he disinfected them!
We can even double-check if the Jarrah was on the airplane. We just need to compare if we find one of the fingerprints on the boarding card in his car (e. g. wheel) and in his apartement.
Now we move to Al Ghamdi’s apartment and try to find if one of the 4 DNA samples is to be found there too. We double-check the fingerprints.
So, all in all it should be possible to prove if the suspected hijackers actually were on the plane by using DNA analysis and comparison of fingerprints. Though it might be not possible to positively identify all nine hijackers.
But still, isn’t the proof that the suspects actually boarded the plane a quite important one?
And if the FBI in New York found DNA I’m pretty sure that the FBI in Washington and Shanksville could have managed that as well.
So, why didn’t they?

In posting #9 for instance I wrote

"...How would it help with what was already established beyond doubt and in what sense would any publicity then assist with their enquiries?"

N.B. Nothing at all about having established any identity beyond doubt, nor any subsequent answer to my reasonable question.

In posting #37 I wrote "Nobody of any significance, nobody to worry the FBI had doubted that the suspects were aboard the aircraft."

N.B. Nothing about any suspect being positively identified, nor any subsequent reply to my invitation to indentify such a cause of doubt.

Elsewhere I have repeatedly pointed out not only that the hijackers identities was not established beyond doubt, but also that by the same token a DNA match to anything that the FBI had would not possibly have achieved a positive identification.

In posting #61 I therefore wrote "...if a DNA sample was not positively identified as belonging to anybody it would not thus assist to identify whatever it was matched to."

As usual, with me and with the larger issue, your are simply not dealing with the reality, but with a fantasy founded upon your own unfortunately slanted misinterpretation.

The question of if the suspected hijackers really boarded the plane would have been answered by the staff at the airport. A DNA match would not in any case prove that they boarded the aircraft. It would only show that they were present when the aircraft crashed.

Well, in case I've misquoted I present my excuses.

Some questions for you:

You state:
"The question of if the suspected hijackers really boarded the plane would have been answered by the staff at the airport."

This seems to be a very weak proof to me. It's subjective and doesn't take into consideration e. g. the different appearances of Hani.
So maybe still a reason to look for a more profound proof.

You state:
"A DNA match would not in any case prove that they boarded the aircraft. It would only show that they were present when the aircraft crashed."

May I ask how the hijackers managed to have their DNA found at the crash site in Shanksville without having boarded the plane? And don't forget that you still have fingerprints on the boarding cards you can use to double-check.

And here my important questions now. And I'd very much appreciate if you could answer them:

Assuming that our four suspects e. g. of Flight 93 have indeed boarded the plane:
Given the fact that we do have the apartments of the hijackers and their cars. How is it NOT possible to find the DNA of the four suspects in theses locations and therefore proving that they have been indeed on the plane?

Given the fact that we do have the apartment of the hijackers and their casr. How is it NOT possible to compare the fingerprints they've left on the boarding cards with the ones they've left in the named locations? This would prove that they've entered the plane.

Please not that cautiosly I say proof that the group of the four entered the plane. A positive identification of each single hijacker might not be possible due to bad circumstance. The proof of the suspects as a group certainly is possible.

Why did the FBI present the Institute with DNA samples of the ten hijackers while the FBI didn't manage that for Flights 93 and 77?

It has to be stressed that the FBI in New York even managed to have the DNA of the ten hijackers WITHOUT having had any DNA already presented by the Institute. So what's more difficult: Finding the DNA of hijackers in the locations where they've lived
with or without DNA samples already established for the hijackers by the Institute?
So why then did the FBI in New York manage to find the DNA of the hijackers without any samples to look for and compare with if the FBI didn't manage it for Flight 77 and 93 although they already had samples"

I would very much appreciate if you could answer theses questions!

Strangely enough, in the hope to make some sense of all this, I would also have been interested to see answers to my questions. I recall no answers for instance to the following:

How in terms of investigating a crime would the DNA concern arise?"
How would it help with what was already established beyond doubt?
In what sense would any publicity assist with FBI enquiries?
(c.f. posting #9)

They got on the planes. They were seen to do so, checked in by airport staff, nothing circumstantial about it. So where and how then would a doubt arise?

(c.f. posting #17)

If then there was no surety as to who a discovered DNA sample had belonged to how would it help (the FBI) to match it to anything?

(c.f. posting #50)

Where does that idea (of hijacker remains being positively identified) come from? For as far as the FBI were concerned, who doubted that any of the suspects were aboard the aircraft?

(c.f. posting #61)

Where did (hijackers' seat numbers) come from if not from a manifest? If they invented the seat numbers what then would prevent the invention of a false manifest?

(c.f. posting #73)

What possible reason did they have to doubt that anybody except the suspects were aboard the aircraft? If the suspects were not aboard the aircraft where are they? If the suspects did not board the aircraft who did board the aircraft?

Do you really not understand why I say that all this is superficial? What you present may be abundantly evident of your own curiorsity, but not of any insight into the way that the FBI actually works.

If you want more profound proof then go get. If they've got the DNA profiles of the remains of the suspects then it is not too late to compare those profiles to, for instance, profiles derived from samples supplied by the relatives of the suspects, and for as long as that is the case I see no basis for any suspicion of a cover up or falsification.

Nobody ever said that it was NOT possible to find the DNA of the four suspects in your given locations. On the contrary, with no apparent attempt to match anything that was found I see no basis to presume that this was not in fact the case.

Nobody ever said that it is NOT possible to compare the fingerprints they've left on the boarding cards. You have not even shown that this was not in fact the case. It could well be the reason why they never bothered with the DNA.

Why did the FBI present the Institute with DNA samples of the ten hijackers while the FBI didn't manage that for Flights 93 and 77?

That was already discussed. In New York there was a public demand. You have not yet shown that a similar demand existed elsewhere. As I have also said it would also be a matter of the estimated value of the research, the chance of finding a positive match and the immediate need with regard to the investigation. Apart from the appeasement of esoteric opinion you have yet to show how it would have helped the FBI, let alone that it was an obligation.

I think I can resume that you acknowledge that in the concret case of the nine hijackers from Flight 77 and 93 it would have been possible to prove if the nine suspects have been on the plane. (If I've misunderstood you, please explain why this wasn't possible).
So I think we can put the question of the DNA aside and turn to your questions about the necessity of such an analysis.

How would it help with what was already established beyond doubt?"

You've made similar statements:
"I have no idea of what this DNA obsession would hope to achieve, nor of what you think the point would be. You have failed absolutely to show who or why anybody but the suspects would have been aboard the Flights. There is nobody else to account for. If DNA samples found elsewhere by the FBI were not identified then the matching of the samples would not possibly have helped to positively identify anybody aboard the aircraft."
(31)

In a constitutional state an accused is as long innocent as his guilt is not proven. This premise should also be vaild for 911. The question who is responsible of the murder of 3000 innocent people is central to the investigation. Moreover if the answer to this question will result in a declaration of war. But as I said an accused is as long innocent as his not proven.
Therefore I don't understand why you say:

"You have failed absolutely to show who or why anybody but the suspects would have been aboard the Flights."
(b] Why am I in the position to prove that somebody else instead of the hijackers had been on board? In any constitutional it should be the prosecutor who has the obligation to present his proofs.

So the question is not if I can present any proof to challenge the official story. The question is:
On which facts is the assumption based that the hijackers have indeed been onboard?


You state:
"They got on the planes. They were seen to do so, checked in by airport staff, nothing circumstantial about it. So where and how then would a doubt arise?"

Who has seen the hijackers checking in and boarding the plane? I think you're talking about airport personel (I'd like to ask you to present me some eyewitness reports please, so I can check for myself).
This proof is problematic:
Airport personel see so many faces every day. How can be any mistake be ruled out?
Given the fact that the FBI came up with different photos of some hijackers till end of September there are some doubts allowed concerning the photos presented to the eyewitnesses. Moreover just think of Hani Hanjour there are three different photos of three different persons. So who is the real Hani Hanjour?
So based on the very subjective style of this proof and the fact that witnesses haven't seen the hijackers for more then several seconds I doubt that this can considered to be a hard proof. That's why certainly a proof based on DNA is preferable.

You state:
"Nobody ever said that it is NOT possible to compare the fingerprints they've left on the boarding cards. You have not even shown that this was not in fact the case. It could well be the reason why they never bothered with the DNA."

This is completely hypothetical. Show me any proof please that indeed the FBI compared the fingerprints. So we can't take this into consideration.


You write:
"Where did (hijackers' seat numbers) come from if not from a manifest? If they invented the seat numbers what then would prevent the invention of a false manifest?"

Indeed the manifest and respectively the boarding cards could be possible proofs (although here already is the first problem as somebody else could have used the suspects identity and boarded the plane. If this is very linkely doesn't matter. But it proves that the DNA is a more valid proof in respect of the presence of the suspects on board)
The problem with the manifest and the boarding cards is they haven't been publicly released.
But the problem doesn't stop here:
Seat numbers:
e. g. on Flight 11 Betty Ong and Madeleine Sweeney (they only see FOUR hijackers) give clearly different seat numbers for the hijackers. Moreover there are at least five different versions of seat numbers for the hijackers in the days after 911 published in the press.
The number of the passengers:
The number of passengers given by CNN and AP on September 13, 2001 differs. Moreover the list of CNN doesn't contain any Arab name. The list of AP contains them only for Flight 11.
CNN state there have been 266 passengers on board but they only managed to give 232 names. The AP list gives 97 names for Flight 11 although there have been only 92.
Evene FBI Robert Mueller gets it wrong/differently one year later: he states that Flight 175 there have been 61 passengers (although there have been only 56).
Moreover there is a big mistakes. Jude and Natalie Larson are listed as passengers although they never even bought a ticket.
So, I don't know but there seems to be a bit of a problem with the flight manifest and the seat numbers. Is this a reliable source (unpublished) that can be seen as a proof that the suspects were on board? I think it's still preferable to rely on DNA in order to avoid any mistake.

And there have been mistakes:
How can it be explained that the brothers Bukhari were considered hijackers although one was already dead for exactcly one year and the other didn't even buy a ticket?
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/america.attack/
How can it be explained that Hani Hanjour was put on the list of the hijackers only on September 14?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html
Although according to the Commission Report he had a boarding card?

So, as I said I really am not sure if theses flight manifests can be seen as solid proofs.

And there are more oddities that stress the need for a clarification if really the 19 suspects have been on board:
There is not a single passenger or crew member that give the officially known number of hijackers although all hijackers had a boardring card and therefore must have been sitting in their seats at the beginning of the flight.
On Flight 11 Ong and Sweeney only manage to see four.
On Flight 93 there are many phone calls. Everybody who gives a number (even passengers sitting next to the hijackers) say that there are three hijackers.

What does this all mean?
That the question if the suspects really have been on board of the hijacked flights is a necessary question. Especially in a constitutional Country it is absolutely legitimate to ask for a proof that the hijackers really have been on board. Especially if the committed crime is punished with a war.
(This all is the reason why it can't depend on the public interest like in New York to do the DNA but it's simply a natural thing to do in a constitutional country.

So, all said the things I see that are the basis for the assumption that the suspects have been on board are by far not as convincing as a DNA analysis and fingerprint comparision. As there has been the possiblity I can't really understand why it wasn't done.

(In case I forgot any of your questions please let me know.)

not prosecuting.

If there was no other reasonable thesis as to who else was on the aircraft then there was nothing else to investigate, therefore no need to match any DNA.

To eventually prosecute, if DNA material and profiles were already available, they could then be matched at any time as need be.

Isn't finding the proof who is the guilty part of investigation?
There is no proof whatsoever and we're talking about mass murder?
And we're talking about a crime that was punished with a war.
No need?

to mount a case in Hamburg.

So I ask again.

From what did any doubt arise?

In the real World that is, not between your ears.

Just btw
you are aware of all the problems ocurring during the two trials in Hamburg, aren't you. The US refused that KSM and Binshalibh could be questioned in the US (or whereever they are).
And do you honestly believe that a court in Hamburg would dare to question the official story of 911? Come on.



In the real world or more precisely in a constitutional country a person is innocent as long is his huilt is not proven. This is also how the world turns in the US in the UK.

"From what did any doubt arise"

Again you turn the table.
The innocent does not have to prove his innocence.

You always look for something substantial but when it comes to figure out who is responsible for a mass murder and to go to war with you simply trust the FBI although I've shown several inconsitencies.

There is nothing to prove that the hijackers were on the plane.
The FBI could have proven it but they didn't.

You didn't manage to bring up any proof that the hijackers boarded the plane.
WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE SLIGHTEST PROOF FROM THE FBI?
WHY YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LACK OF INTEREST IN MATCHING THE DNA?
WHY?

that the suspects as described by the FBI were aboard the aircraft.

You agreed finally that DNA and fingerprints would indeed have been able to prove if the suspects really have been on board nonetheless you see no need as you

"see no reason to doubt that the suspects as described by the FBI were onboard the aircraft."

You have no doubt.

Although the reliability of flight manifests and boarding cards seems to be questionable.

Why does the number of passengers vary?
Why do the seat numbers of the hijacker vary?
Why are passengers listed that haven't even booked a ticket?
Can you explain that?

You have no doubt.

Although your statement that the names of the hijackers were known right from the start is evidently not correct!

How is it possible that the brothers Bukhari have been believed to have been hijackers of Flight 11?
Why was Hani Hanjour only added on September 14?
Why did the FBI talked of
"bands of three to six terrorists on each airliner"?http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp
Can you explain that?

In the light of all theses oddities, contradictions and mistakes surrounding the flight manifests (which never have been publicly released) why not go for a valied proof of DNA and fingerprints?


Finding the best proofs is clearly part of an investigation.
And certainly of the "biggest criminal investigation in the history of the US".
And certainly in an investigation whose conclusion will lead to a war.
Or is the UK-lawyer Anthony Scrivener right:

"…it is a sobering thought that better evidence is required to prosecute a shoplifter than is needed to commence a world war."
(The Times, 10/5/02)

the suspects as described by the FBI were not aboard, who was aboard, and what became of the suspects?

:shrug:

Reports vary because reporters screw up.
I do not doubt because you have no alternative explanation.

Nor have you shown that the best proof was not found.

DNA samples not matched is not DNA samples not found.

Why not go ....?

Because there was no need

Nobody of any concern to the FBI had doubted that the suspects were aboard the aircraft. The matter has not been contested as a part of any case tried in any court nor is there any sign of it being contested as a part of any case prepared to be lodged.

Is that really so hard to understand? If you want to force the issue, mount a case.

It’s always very easy to blame the poor journalists. As you failed to explain any oddity, contradiction and mistake surrounding the flight manifests you simply state:

“Reports vary because reporters screw up.”

Hm. Shall we have a closer look?

Why does the number of passengers vary?
Maybe because of poor journalism? Then why did FBI Robert Mueller III gave “wrong” passenger numbers himself almost one year later?
Can you explain that?

Why are passengers listed that haven’t even booked a ticket?
Maybe because of poor journalism? Do you honestly believe journalists are inventing names?
And just to be precise I can show you mistakes concerning names on passenger lists for every of the four hijacked flights.
Can you explain that?

Why do the seat numbers of the hijacker vary?
Maybe because of poor journalism? There have been five different statements in the new only for the seat numbers of the hijackers on AA 11. Well, certainly in the US every journalists is happy to take his own personal guess. Only problematic that also flight attendants Betty Ong and Madeleine Sweeney gave different seat numbers for the hijackers.
Can you explain that?

Why doesn’t a single passenger or flight attendant on any flight see all the hijackers?
Can you explain that?

Why did the FBI speak of 18 hijackers?
Maybe because of poor journalism? Quite unlikely if one is quoting FBI. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/
Can you explain that?

Why was Hani Hanjour only added on September 14?
Maybe because of poor journalism? …
Can you explain that?

How is it possible that the brothers Bukhari have been believed to have been hijackers of Flight 11?
Maybe because of poor journalism? Some random journalist who simply invented a name?

“Law enforcement sources also tell CNN that the Bukhari brothers were believed to have been on of the two flights out of Boston, one of those two flights that wound up slamming into the World Trade Center.”
(CNN, 9/12/01, 3 pm) (CNN, 9/12/01, 7 pm)

Interestingly the Bukharis have a very similar background to the hijackers. On September 13 CNN excused themselves (again talking of law enforcement sources)
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/

Suspicion against the Bukharis can only have arisen if they have been on the flight manifest. But they didn’t buy a ticket. One of the brothers is dead since September 11, 2000.
So, can you explain that?

I think you’ll have a hard time to explain all the oddities, contradictions and clear mistakes by simply stating that’s poor journalism.
Flight manifests should be absolutely reliable.
But apparently on 911 this is not the case.
So based on what do we know the hijackers were aboard?


And just to make things clear it’s absolutely of no importance that
“nobody of any concern to the FBI had doubted that the suspects were aboard the aircraft.”

And it’s certainly neither the innocent who has to prove his innocence nor do I “ have to mount a case” in order to wonder why the FBI simply didn’t do their job. (Does the defendant have to prove that somebody else is guilty in order to achieve that the accused is called “not guilty”??)

It’s the center of every investigation (and certainly of the “biggest criminal investigation in the history of the US”) to find the evidences that proves who is guilty of a crime.

You’re right, it’s not possible to prove who actually did the hijacking but it’s possible to prove if the suspects boarded the plane. The FBI had everything they needed to have a real proof (just give the DNA to the Institute and asks them to compare theses with the samples they already had.) But they were satisfied with a circumstantial evidence based on the flight manifest instead of a real proof.

Can you explain the oddities, contradictions and mistakes surrounding the flight manifests?
Are the flight manifests reliable?
If not, (just put your trust in the FBI aside) don’t we need something that really deserves to be called a proof?

not to journalists.

Journalists are not the only people who report.

In view of tnetative identifications I am not surprised if
conjectures were variously derived from different sources, lists of reservations, lists of ticket purchases, credit cards and other circumstantial evidence, as well as any actual flight manifest.

The Bukhari connection arose from evidence found in the rented car left in Portland. I am surprised if you were not aware of that.

If some things are not positively explained, so what?

That's life; nothing else is thereby proved.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Words, though, words NEVER lie. Well, sometimes reporters make mistakes, but really who cares, what does it matter, it won't hold up in a court of law, if the law is ever to be followed in this land again.
WE JUST GOT TO TRUST IN THE ACRONYMIC EXPERTS....LIKE THE FBI, AND THE CIA, AND THE NIST, AND CNN....AND THE NYT...AND THE PNAC....:scared:

I wonder what ABC or NBC will make Hani Hanjour look like in their new mini series dramatizing the events of 9/11!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

”In view of tentative identifications I am not surprised if
conjectures were variously derived from different sources, lists of reservations, lists of ticket purchases, credit cards and other circumstantial evidence, as well as any actual flight manifest.”

Interesting statement.
Unfortunately you didn’t precise which one of my many questions was supposed to be answered by this.

Well, let’s have a look:

Why does the number of passengers vary?
Your explanation doesn’t explain this at all. The number of passengers only depend on the number of passengers that actually checked in. So nothing about credit card etc.
Reservations? This would not explain why AP and CNN have different numbers. Moreover none has the number correctly. Even FBI Mueller got it wrong one year after 911.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/0210hrg/021017/witness.htm
Do you mind to provide me with any document or article (you can choose your journalists or reporters!) in the weeks after 911 that got the passenger numbers for all four flights right?
If you don’t do you really think your general explanation suffice?

Why are passengers listed that haven’t even booked a ticket?
Your explanation doesn’t explain this at all.

Why do the seat numbers of the hijacker vary?
Your explanation doesn’t explain this at all. Seat numbers are only issued at the check in. So it has nothing to do with reservation, credit card or whatever.
Do you mind to provide me with any document from September 2001 that actually got the seat numbers correct? (In any case we’re only talking of AA 11 as for the other flights no seat numbers have been published)
Any idea why two highly experienced flight attendants only see four hijackers on AA 11 and contradict clearly in their observation of the seat numbers of the hijackers?

Why doesn’t a single passenger or flight attendant on any flight see all the hijackers?
Your explanation doesn’t explain this at all!
Do you mind to provide me with any document that has one passenger mentioning all the hijackers on the plane?

Why did the FBI speak of 18 hijackers?
Your explanation doesn’t explain this at all! Btw this statement is based on a press release of the FBI.
Do you mind to provide me with any document that shows that the FBI was talking of 19 hijackers right after 911?

Why was Hani Hanjour only added on September 14?
Again your explanation doesn’t explain this at all.
Do you mind to provide me with any document that mentions the name of Hani Hanjour before September 14?

So I turn now to the only question where you provided a very short statement:

”The Bukhari connection arose from evidence found in the rented car left in Portland. I am surprised if you were not aware of that.”

First I’d like to point out that it would make the discussion much easier if you’d bother to give a source from time to time.
You don’t have any reason to be surprised as I’ve read of this explanation concerning the Bukhari brothers.
But the sources I’ve quoted in my last post clearly speak of the Bukhari brother’s being hijackers actually aboard a plane that hit the WTC not as some associates:

“Law enforcement sources also tell CNN that the Bukhari brothers were believed to have been on of the two flights out of Boston, one of those two flights that wound up slamming into the World Trade Center.”
(CNN, 9/12/01, 3 pm)

And the following day the words used again “to be two of the pilots”:

“Based on information from multiple law enforcement sources, CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.ter... /

On September 14 the AP publishes this (speaking only of Adnan Bukhari):

“A Saudi neighbor of a Vero Beach man whose name is on a list of hijackers in the World Trade Center attack is no longer part of the investigation.”
(AP, 9/14/01)

Can you please tell what evidence found in the rented car in Portland actually made the FBI believe the brothers were aboard AA 11? I looked everywhere but I didn’t managed to find what it was. (after a polygraph test Bukhari was released miraculously…)

But anyway.
Whatever the FBI might have found in this car how can they have assumed that the Bukharis were aboard AA 11?
First: Ameer Bukhari is dead in any case since one year. So what evidence could still have linked him?
The car was found in Portland. How did the Bukharis managed to come to Boston. Neither they can have been on the flight manifest of AA 11 nor of the flight Portland – Boston. Nor are there any video footages from Portland. So how can they be suspected to have been aboard AA 11?
Just a last question: If theses two had been suspected to have been hijackers aboard AA 11 this does not only conflict with the fact that their names aren’t listed on the flight manifest but also it would also change the number of passengers.
This whole Bukhari story makes as much sense as Al Suqami’s passport found near the WTC!

You finish your short post with the following:

”If some things are not positively explained, so what?

I just put my surprise about your lack of interest in the proof of the suspects really being aboard aside. You failed to give any explanation whatsoever to the oddities, contradictions and clear mistakes I’ve mentioned.

May I ask:
Is it too much of a conspiracy theory if I simply wonder why the FBI didn’t try to get a real proof that the suspects actually have been on the plane?
Is it too much to ask for something that really deserves the name “proof”?

I fail to see what it has got to do with guilt or innocence anyway.

It is not a crime to be aboard an aircraft.

And if, as you say, a person is innocent as long is his guilt is not proven, why then do you persistently refer to them as "hijackers" while I take care to refer to them as "suspects"?

As you don't like my first quote maybe you prefer this one:


"DNA profiles for the four hijackers were also established".

(Among the Heroes, p. 363)

But I'm sure you're right that the Institute didn't do it!

The Institute did not do what?

:shrug:

I'd thought you were complaining that the DNA of the supects was not investigated.

Are you now complaining that it was investigated?

Do you have any intention to discuss?
What's your aim?
My question is clear:
The Institute had the DNA profiles of the four hijackers. So why not try if they do match DNA found in Jarrah's car.

Why do I've to repeat my question three times?

I do not intend to repeat, just to be accused of going around in circles.

If you dont like the answer, too bad.

Find somebody else to annoy.

Bye Bye.

I do not begin to understand that comment.

Who ever said or suggested that no DNA profile was established?

Do you have a link to anything to that effect?

Wht's that?
Interesting to respond to threats that are two weeks old....

Sure, we can agree that DNA profiles of the hijackers of Flight 93 and 77 were established by the Institute. Can we move forward to threat 130?

"threat"?

Are you kidding?

You're going nowhere, just echoing stuff already fluffed up long since.

In July 2003 there was for instance a DU thread entitled:
"The Bukhari Thread - on special request of RH an acerbic"

Did you miss it?

And are we then supposed to be enthralled when you run backwards with your eyes shut as if to catch up again?

Why? What are you fishing for?

:shrug:

Notwithstanding any errors, stolen identities or plundered credit cards Hanjour was involved. Circumstantial evidence to that effect is abundant.

Why does the number of passengers vary?
Did you answer it?
:shrug:

Why are passengers listed that haven’t even booked a ticket?
Did you answer it?
:shrug:

Any idea why two highly experienced flight attendants only see four hijackers on AA 11 and contradict clearly in their observation of the seat numbers of the hijackers?
Did you answer it?
:shrug:

Why did the FBI speak of 18 hijackers?
Did you answer it?
:shrug:

Why was Hani Hanjour only added on September 14?
Did you answer it?
Oh yes, there was something!

Notwithstanding any errors, stolen identities or plundered credit cards Hanjour was involved. Circumstantial evidence to that effect is abundant.

Hm, it doesn't really explain wht for three days the FBI was convinced that Hani wasn't part of it. Why? What's so special about Hani?

Why were the Bukhari brothers suspeced hijackers?
Did you answer it?

You're going nowhere, just echoing stuff already fluffed up long since.
In July 2003 there was for instance a DU thread entitled:
"The Bukhari Thread - on special request of RH an acerbic"
Did you miss it?
And are we then supposed to be enthralled when you run backwards with your eyes shut as if to catch up again?

I'm a new member of DU. And the archives don't work until after the election btw .....
But I'm really happy if you provide me with some knowledge and enlighten me! To see arguments and quotes is much more interesting for me than your regular comments on my intellect and my personality.

So explain me the Bukharis, how did they manage to come on the flight manifest? What did link them to the rented car in Portland, to begin with? And which two hijackers aboard AA 11 were not supposed to have been hijackers till the Bukharis were dropped?

In the light of all theses questions are the flight manifests that reliable that one can ignore the possibility of real evicence by DNA and fingerprints because there was "no need"? (/b]

Why does the number of passengers vary?

I do not know that the number of passengers did vary and with no particular reference to anything in particular I cannot imagine how anybody is supposed to answer.

Passenger list published soon after the event failed to show some passengers, most likely because their relatives were not informed or because the relatives had especially esked for identities to be withheld. The usual protocol is to inform relatives before any public announcement is made.


Why are passengers listed that haven’t even booked a ticket?

Are you kidding?

On the one hand you complain that you have no definitive manifest, and then you presume to know who was listed and who booked? Which is it?

Some people purchase tickets at the last minute while others fail to show. Maybe there was a confusion between those who had booked tickets and those who were actually on the flights. Seats are assigned in advance. If you go to AA.com you can see which seats are avaible for today's schedule.


Any idea why two highly experienced flight attendants only see four hijackers on AA 11 and contradict clearly in their observation of the seat numbers of the hijackers?

I surmise that the suspects' tactic was not to act in unison, all together at the same time. Possibly big bribes were paid to facilitate an initial cooperation. If bribes were paid it is then no big surprise if traces of the fact were covered up.


Why did the FBI speak of 18 hijackers?

Why was Hani Hanjour only added on September 14?

There was some talk of Hanjour not being on the manifest.
Maybe there was a mundane adminstrative lapse. To correctly understand the situation the need is to eliminate hindsight, not to apply it. The context in 2001 was one of poorly motivated staff, with the airlines nosediving towards bankruptcy.

Maybe there was some confusion because of stolen identities.


Why were the Bukhari brothers suspected hijackers?

Evidence appeared to connect them. If it then turned out that they were not directly involved it would be absolutely right the FBI to be quiet about it, as they were. If wrongly suspected that is most certainly the course of action that I would hope for.

I used to think that the Bukharis and some others may be connected to secret services but it is dangerously unhelful to speculate with nothing solid to back anything up. Theoretical conjectures have a horrible habit of turning into supposed facts overnight.

Who ignores the possibility of real evidence by DNA and fingerprints?

I do not know that the supects' DNA profiles were not matched. I do not know that fingerprints were not matched. Where did that idea come from? As yet I have nothing more than talk of DNA samples not being supplied, which is not quite the same thing.

Your expectations are odd. Do you seriously expect criminal investigators to assist the investigated by showing their hand at all times and in every instance? That is simply not how they work. Look at any other criminal case before trial. It is like poker, not chess.

Just simple facts:
There is only ONe (1, uno , eine une, odin)passenger list per flight. As it is in the computers, it can be published in minutes after an incident. They did not do - which can be understood as Families do not like to get shocked by the media, they prefer to get shoked by the FBI bouncing in their doors to share the grief.
But there is only ONE list.

The published ones were not complete. Some Names missing, some too much. Same with the hijackers. Missing and too much.

So for days the CIA/FBI could juggle until all identities were prepared, and even later they sometimes said "oh no, we did not mean this hijackers, we mean another." Very fishy.

You ask:"Why are passengers listed that haven’t even booked a ticket?
Are you kidding?
On the one hand you complain that you have no definitive manifest, and then you presume to know who was listed and who booked? Which is it?
Some people purchase tickets at the last minute while others fail to show. Maybe there was a confusion between those who had booked tickets and those who were actually on the flights. Seats are assigned in advance. If you go to AA.com you can see which seats are avaible for today's schedule."

Again you try to argue with tickets. They are not relevant. It is the bordcard and the sniplets and the manifest.

I.e. the Larsons were too much. They did not buy a ticket. They could not be on a manifest. But their father got the above mentioned visit in his Hawaii home. Thgey showes up later and were glad not to be as dead as told.

Other "passengers" had no identity at all. Foreigners. Their names were listed but it must be impossible to have informed their families and got their allowance to publish the names . IF this was the cause of the delay of the publishing.

that there was only one passenger list?

The flights were code share.

can you elongate a plane? stretch it a little bit?
If not, you have only a certain amount of seats.
That is why in the end there is only ONE passenger list.

And b.t.w.: I do not hear any reply on the Larson problem, which made you ask if somebody is kidding.

Why does the number of passengers vary?

You write:
I do not know that the number of passengers did vary and with no particular reference to anything in particular I cannot imagine how anybody is supposed to answer.

I quote Paul Thompson’s timeline:
September 13, 2001 (C): AP publishes a list of all the people on board the hijacked airlines. This follows an earlier list from CNN on 9/11. These lists are very curious, because the numbers don't appear to add up. Take for instance Flight 11. The list has 86 passengers on board, including five hijackers, plus 11 crew members, a total of 97. But there only were 92 people total on board the plane according to all accounts. The numbers only work if you subtract the five hijackers. The other plane lists all have too few names, by up to five people. (AP, 9/13/01 B).

I have downloaded the list and also checked it on LN.
Unfortunately it’s not on the net anymore. If you like to see it I can pm it to you.


You continue:
Passenger list published soon after the event failed to show some passengers, most likely because their relatives were not informed or because the relatives had especially asked for identities to be withheld. The usual protocol is to inform relatives before any public announcement is made.

As I was talking only of the “number of passengers” your explanation about “identities” being “withheld” is of no help.
So I guess the question remains unanswered.


Why are passengers listed that haven’t even booked a ticket?

You write:
Are you kidding?

On the one hand you complain that you have no definitive manifest, and then you presume to know who was listed and who booked? Which is it?

Sorry, I’m not kidding. I complain that there is no flight manifest publicly released and at the same time I can have a look at the AP and CNN victim list. I don’t “presume to know who was listed and who booked”. How can I? But as I’ve no other material it makes sense to look at lists published by the media. And if there are people mentioned that have never even made a reservation for AA 11 then it’s worth a question.

You continue:
Some people purchase tickets at the last minute while others fail to show. Maybe there was a confusion between those who had booked tickets and those who were actually on the flights. Seats are assigned in advance. If you go to AA.com you can see which seats are avaible for today's schedule.

So, but what do you make of people that haven’t even made a reservation for a hijacked flight. That were not even close to Boston on 911? And I’m not talking of the dead Bukhari. Just have a look at medienanalyse’s post.
You can find Jude and Natalie Larson listed as victims here:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
Two years later CNN doesn’t list them anymore:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page94.html

Btw Jude and Natalie Larson are still to be found on several memorial websites:
http://www.911attackmemorial.com/aa11.html

So I guess the question remains unanswered.

Any idea why two highly experienced flight attendants only see four hijackers on AA 11 and contradict clearly in their observation of the seat numbers of the hijackers?

You wrote:
I surmise that the suspects' tactic was not to act in unison, all together at the same time. Possibly big bribes were paid to facilitate an initial cooperation. If bribes were paid it is then no big surprise if traces of the fact were covered up.

I’m sorry, maybe this is due to my poor English reading comprehension but I really don’t see how your statement can explain why Betty Ong and Madeline Sweeney only saw four hijackers? The difference is quite astonishing:
Ong gives 2A, 2B, 9A and 9B.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm
Sweeney: The "numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1556096.stm
Portland Press Herald, 10/14/01 suggests she said the hijackers were sitting in rows 9 and 10.
The New York Observer, 2/11/04 states she only gave the location of three hijackers: 9D, 9G and 10B.
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8612

And what were now the actual seats?
2A, 2B, 8D, 8G and 10B.
Ong missed 10B and said 9A and 9B instead of 8D and 8G.
Sweeney completely misses the second row and she as well sees no hijacker in row 8 but in row 9…
The hijackers had boarding cards and seats assigned to them. How come the flight attendants don’t manage to give their seats? Moreover why don’t the flight attendants not see all five hijackers? Why is there not a single flight where at least one witness sees all hijackers? Why does everybody on UA 93 that gives a number speaks of three hijackers?
I don’t see that my question is answered.
And talking of the reliability of the flight manifest: Why are there five different accounts of the seat numbers in the press after 911?

Why did the FBI speak of 18 hijackers?

Why was Hani Hanjour only added on September 14?

You wrote:
There was some talk of Hanjour not being on the manifest.
Maybe there was a mundane adminstrative lapse. To correctly understand the situation the need is to eliminate hindsight, not to apply it. The context in 2001 was one of poorly motivated staff, with the airlines nosediving towards bankruptcy.

Well, that’s great. But how can you have a boarding card if you’re not on the flight manifest. (It’s true the Washington Post explained the late “arrival” of Hanjour as declared hijacker by him not having a boarding card. But the Commission Report clearly states that he had (1B)).
And if a “poorly motivated staff” somehow forgot to put Hanjour on the flight manifest (well, I thought the data was directly transferred via computer and no motivated staff required) then a quick glance on the boarding card would have helped and I don’t think this takes three days….

You continue:
Maybe there was some confusion because of stolen identities.

There are numerous reports that the hijackers bought the tickets using their real names. Do you have any link showing that Hanjour (and apparently only him) used a stolen identity to buy his ticket?
I guess the questions still remains unanswered.


Why were the Bukhari brothers suspected hijackers?

You write:

Evidence appeared to connect them. If it then turned out that they were not directly involved it would be absolutely right the FBI to be quiet about it, as they were. If wrongly suspected that is most certainly the course of action that I would hope for.

Were they on the flight manifest? If so then how come?
If not then what possible evidence could have linked them to the hijacking of AA 11?
What possible evidence can link a person being dead for one year to 911?
If the FBI suspects dead persons being hijackers then do you honestly mind that I wonder why they didn’t try to match the DNA to have a real proof????

You continue:
I used to think that the Bukharis and some others may be connected to secret services but it is dangerously unhelful to speculate with nothing solid to back anything up. Theoretical conjectures have a horrible habit of turning into supposed facts overnight.

Interesting. But then how can a dead person be connected to secret services or are you implying that Bukhari’s death on 9/11/00 was faked?
But still the question remain pure and simple:
If they have been on the flight manifest how is this possible?
And how can they have been suspected immediately after 911 if they weren’t on the flight manifest?
And btw I’ve another person that was suspected hijacker on AA 11 but only till September 13 (but some newspapers listed his name even much longer …). But more on him NEXT TIME!

All the questions I asked should be answered with a quick glance on the flight manifest but they’re still unanswered. Theses manifests seem to be strangely unreliable. And the fact that they have never made public doesn’t add to their credibility.
There is another possibility to obtain hard evidence: Trying to match DNA. But the FBI lacks any interest. Why?

You write:

Who ignores the possibility of real evidence by DNA and fingerprints?

I do not know that the supects' DNA profiles were not matched. I do not know that fingerprints were not matched. Where did that idea come from? As yet I have nothing more than talk of DNA samples not being supplied, which is not quite the same thing.

Unfortunately your statement is purely hypothetical! I have well documented that the FBI didn’t supply any DNA for Flights 77 and 93 (but for 11 and 175). Do you mind to show me any article, document whatever that indicates that DNA or fingerprints were indeed matched. Otherwise your statement is absolutely hypothetical.


Well, let’s have the opinion of somebody involved in the investigation.
How did they manage to know who were the hijackers:
Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection testified:
"And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn’t take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes."
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8612

Sounds very convincing.
There is only one problem: It’s complete BS!

So, I still wonder:
How unreliable can a flight manifest be?
How unreliable does it have to be in order to go for real evidences?

that some names were missing from lists published soon after 9/11

Why are passengers listed that haven’t even booked a ticket?
What do I make of people that haven’t even made a reservation for a hijacked flight?

I'd thought that so long as a seat is available it is perfectly possible to board a flight without a reservation. Is that not the case? A carrier is usually more concerned with the purchase of a ticket!

Why does everybody speak of three hijackers?

Presumably because three hijackers were obvious while others were not. My guess is that some quietly gained access to the cockpit at an early stage.

How come the flight attendants don’t manage to give their seats?
Why are there five different accounts of the seat numbers in the press after 911?

Did it occur to you that people may have sat in seats with numbers that they did not book?

Why was Hani Hanjour only added on September 14?

One may presumably have a boarding card without being on a flight manifest if an administrator happens to neglect to register a name on a manifest. It depends how the system works. I dont know how a computer would verify that anybody boarded a plane without some sort of human input.

I heard that one credit card was used to purchase five of the suspect's tickets. I also heard that Hanjour purchased his ticket with cash, so maybe with no immediate paper trail to trace the source of the money there was thus a delay before investigators verified the probable identity of the purchaser.

I saw somewhere that the Bukhari brothers were on a flight manifest, but I'd want to see coroboration before going on that.


Do you have any proof that DNA was not matched? I have only heard that samples were not supplied. It is presumably possible to match DNA profiles derived from samples in diffferent locations.

My statement was not hypothetical; it was a simple statement of fact: I do not know that fingerprints were not matched. You appear to assume that fingerprints were not matched. Is that assumption hypothetical?

How unreliable can a flight manifest be?

As unreliable as it is allowed to be. Do you have any real information as to how rigorous the usual practice was? If not you would appear to have nought but an hypothesis to play with.

I didn’t claim that some names were missing on the list right after 911 but that the Ap list from September 13 gives 5 names to much for flight AA 11. And I’d be happy if you explain me this. As I said I can pm you the list with all the 97 names on it. Or you can simply believe the quote from Paul Thomspon’s timeline whose reliability should be known.

Why are passengers listed that haven’t even booked a ticket?

What do I make of people that haven’t even made a reservation for a hijacked flight?

I'd thought that so long as a seat is available it is perfectly possible to board a flight without a reservation. Is that not the case? A carrier is usually more concerned with the purchase of a ticket!

I had hoped that if medienanalyse and me asked the same question you would bother to answer. I hoped in vain. Although I gave three links talking clearly about Jude and Natalie Larson who are still alive, haven’t reserved a ticket, haven’t been near to Boston:
Why are they listed as having been aboard?
Why are three other persons listed on the AP list that haven’t been aboard neither?
What’s going on with the flight manifest?

Why does everybody speak of three hijackers?

Presumably because three hijackers were obvious while others were not. My guess is that some quietly gained access to the cockpit at an early stage.
Problem for UA 93. Not a single passenger remarks all four hijackers. Even passengers seated next to them! The hijacker’s attack started officially at 9:27 (take off at 8;42) Passengers describing the attack of the hijackers all talk of three. I’ve explained this in detail in the thread “Flight 93: Too many contradictions”)

How come the flight attendants don’t manage to give their seats?
Why are there five different accounts of the seat numbers in the press after 911?

Did it occur to you that people may have sat in seats with numbers that they did not book?

That’s a really funny explanation!
You’ve two very experienced flight attendants and two very different accounts.
Apparently this can’t be explained with the hijackers being in seats different from the ones they had booked.

Why was Hani Hanjour only added on September 14?

One may presumably have a boarding card without being on a flight manifest if an administrator happens to neglect to register a name on a manifest. It depends how the system works. I dont know how a computer would verify that anybody boarded a plane without some sort of human input.

The registration at the check in goes straight into the computer. I don’t know how the actual boarding process works but it seems to me that it in any case the check in (and the assigned seat) information would register Hanjour’s name and therefore immediately help the investigators.

I heard that one credit card was used to purchase five of the suspect's tickets. I also heard that Hanjour purchased his ticket with cash, so maybe with no immediate paper trail to trace the source of the money there was thus a delay before investigators verified the probable identity of the purchaser.

Good point. But why didn’t the FBI state on September 13 that they have 18 identities and still verifying the 19th but instead they clearly are talking of 18 hijackers (four for AA 77)?


I saw somewhere that the Bukhari brothers were on a flight manifest, but I'd want to see coroboration before going on that.

I’ll say again: How did the names come on the manifest?
If it was a case of stolen identity then why was it never published? Which hijacker stole the identities? How did the FBI figure out the real identities?

Btw the Bukhari story is really interesting. I’ve read all articles in Lexis-Nexis…


Do you have any proof that DNA was not matched? I have only heard that samples were not supplied. It is presumably possible to match DNA profiles derived from samples in diffferent locations.

Sure it is but not in that case. You need the DNA from the plane at the crash site (established by the Institute for AA 77 and UA 93) and of course you need DNA samples from the suspects before they entered the plane e. g. from their apartments etc. The Institute clearly states that it wasn’t provided with DNA samples. So how could the DNA have been matched then (just letting aside for a moment that it’s rather strange again that there is absolutely no account in the press nor a press release by the FBI about that!)?



How unreliable can a flight manifest be?

As unreliable as it is allowed to be. Do you have any real information as to how rigorous the usual practice was? If not you would appear to have nought but an hypothesis to play with.

Well, I think the usual practise is not to list names that have absolutely nothing to do with the flight….

Wondering about all theses contradictions, oddities and clear mistakes I was turning to the Independent Commission and wanted to know if they can clarify for me how the 19 hijackers had been identified (and if there was no need for any real proof). Here's is what they had to say:

Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, gave the following statement before the 9/11 Commission:
“On the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passengers manifest for the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers. Within 45 minutes of the attacks, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community. ”
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_bonner.htm


And in the actual hearing on January 26, 2004:

“MR. BEN-VENISTE: Let me ask you briefly about your statement about the day on 9/11 which I found very interesting. You say that, on the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest of the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers within 45 minutes of the attack, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community. How are your people able to do that?

MR. BONNER: Well, it was pretty simple actually. We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through the TECS/IBIS system. This is essentially the lookout system that both U.S. Customs and INS use but it's maintained by Customs. We ran it through the system. Two of the passengers on those aircraft were hits for having been entered on the watchlist in August of 2001. That was al Mihdhar and I forget the other one's name but they were the two people that had gone to Singapore that the CIA had identified. But they actually were put on the watchlist in August of 2001 by the FBI. So they hit on those two.
Just using those two hits and taking a look at some other basic data about the flight manifest, both in terms of -- I don't want to go into a lot of detail -- but where they were seated, where they purchased their tickets, you could do just a quick link analysis and essentially, I remember I was at Secret Service headquarters, as I said, but I would say whether it was 45 minutes, I don't know but my recollection is that certainly by 11:00 a.m., I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19. “
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm

It sheds a very bad light on the Independent Commission that somebody can say under oath (and give the same statement beforehand) such clear nonsense and not a single questions follows up!
No question about Adnan and Ameer Bukhari.
No question about Hani Hanjour who was added on the list on September 14 only.

And once again no questions answered.

What happened to the central promise of the FBI?

"FBI Director Robert Mueller said the bureau's first mission is to identify the hijackers, and that many of them have been identified."
(Chicago Tribune, 9/13/01)

"We will leave no stone unturned until we have determined who was responsible for these attacks on our freedom," said Mueller, who is in his second week on the job."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A21162-2001Sep12¬Found=true

I'm sorry but I still see way to many stones that haven't even been touched!

Why did the FBI speak of 18 hijackers?

Why was Hani Hanjour only added on September 14?

You wrote:

There was some talk of Hanjour not being on the manifest.
Maybe there was a mundane adminstrative lapse. To correctly understand the situation the need is to eliminate hindsight, not to apply it. The context in 2001 was one of poorly motivated staff, with the airlines nosediving towards bankruptcy.

Maybe there was some confusion because of stolen identities.

The explanation of WP that Hani wasn't on the flight manifest is refuted by the fact that the Commission published his seat number.

The explanation of stolen identities (even if it is not claimed anywhere - as far as I know - that Hani bought his ticket under a different name) doesn't work neither simply because it doesn't explain that for three days the FBI was convinced and the Justice Departement declared it: AA 77 was hijacked by 4 hijackers (not five).


So, how can one change his mind on that?
How can a believed passenger (with an Arab name. The only Arab name that was considered for three days not to have been part of the operation) turn after three days into a hijacker?

that the FBI was "convinced"?

I do not know that Hanjour bought his ticket under any name. He paid cash. Does the name on the ticket have to be the name of the purchaser? How then would a three year old be able to fly?

On September 13, 2001:
“FBI Director Robert Mueller said a preliminary investigation indicated 18 hijackers were on the four planes -- five on each of the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, and four each on the planes that crashed into the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/

So, far two days Hani Hanjour wasn’t a suspect for two days.
On their September 14 declaration the FBI of course doesn’t give any explanation why they decided to add Hanjour.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm

All newspaper accounts always state that the hijackers bought the ticket under their real names (and you haven’t provided me with the contrary). Certainly Hanjour must give a name so we can assume it was his name. So, why then was he not suspected although his name figured on the manifest? Why was he the only Arab name on all four flights that wasn’t declared to be a hijacker?

If his name wasn’t on the flight manifest as the Washington Post believes (apparently the only newspaper that bothered to think about what was going on) then how come he had a seat number (1B)?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html
And how come that the CNN and AP passenger number for AA 77 published on September 13 corresponds to the number in the Commission Report (although one had to expect that the number was one too little).

If he used a stolen identity: Why do all accounts then wrongly state that all the hijackers bought the tickets under their names and he was the only exception? Why did nobody point out that he used a stolen identity? And most importantly how did the FBI figure out who he really was? Wouldn’t the uncertainty of the hijacker’s identity caused by a stolen identity not even raise the necessity to go for real proofs and use DNA and fingerprints?

Could lared or rh enlighten us how the F.B.I deduced that Hani Hanjour was on Flight 77.

For if the F.B.I used other means of testing other than D.N.A.....


Then how did the F.B.I identify this man..........



Or this man.........



Who are supposed to be one in the same person.

Did both of these men have identical finger prints and dental records..........

Or did he/they have another one of those infamouse Arabic indestructable passports....

The person presently known as "Hani Hanjour" said "I am Hani Hanjour".

Given that the FBI never pretended that any of the identifications was absolute, what then is the issue supposed to be?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and the families opinion on the person in the video is ....?

Looks like there is another photo of Hanjour........

A picture of Hanjour handed out by the FBI — taken by a surveillance camera — was published in local newspapers here(Saudi Arabia) In that picture, Hanjour stands with Majed Moqaid, another suspect, at the ATM of a bank.
http://www.billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/arabnews092201.html.

I have never seen this photo..............

One for thing is for sure.......

It can only feature one of the 3 Hani Hanjours.

Or

Maybe there is a fourth.......

Hanjour's family's opinion of the person in the video is ....?

You invoked them. What about it?

If they or anybody else who met the man says it can't be him maybe then you've got a point.

In the mean time did you ever happen to meet Hanjour or is all this just of a lot of uselessly idle gossip, as usual?

You know RH........

I gotta hand it to ya.........

That is a damn fucking good question........

Why have the Hanjours remained silent about the obviouse discrepencies in the following photographs concerning their son?

Does there silence imply that Hani was a mutant?

But.......

Even if Hanjour's family were to comment on these photographs....

They could only pick one of the following 3 men to have been Hani:

And..............

I just know that these photos are music to your eyes....







I guess we will have to wait for the al-CIA-da video will that 18 of the 19 hijackers filmed before 9/11........

Oh I am sorry.........

Did I say 18.......

Well........

According to 9/11 propagandist Khalid Sheik Mohammed........

One of the hijackers refused to do a video will......

Wouldnt suprise me if it was our Hani......

Seatnineb did you say 18.
Well, this brings me to a thought:

We remember that the FBI claimed at the beginning that 4 hijackers hd been on Flight 77.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/america.attack/

Only on September 14, 2001 the one hijacker was added (it's funny that's the same day the Bukhari brothers regained their innocence and weren't called hijackers. So one brother didn't care cause he was dead the other lives happily in Florida)


The “Washington Times” explains the addition of one hijacker to the list:
“(Hani Hanjour’s) name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html

Of course one could wonder how Hani could be identified as a hijacker if he wasn't even on the manifest...
Well, maybe he hided somewhere in the plane as a blind passenger and the great FBI figured it out.

But here is a small problem:
The Commission Report states:
Hani Hanjour "assigned to seat 1B" (p. 3)

So obviously he had a boarding card, so he was on the Flight manifest. So why the hell took it three days till he was sentenced guilty??

Mon ami.....

C'est une grande mensonge!

Besides Hani I'd like to check out the DNA of Jarrah!
Very strange guy. He even has the capability to be at two different places at the same time!
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayjarrah

But anyway who cares about the identity of the hijackers?
Obviously not the FBI. So why should we ....!
Certainly it's more substantial to trust the FBI ................................................................................................................

Here is blatant evidence that the 9/11 commission report is lying.....

First....read this.....

Nothing on earth would convince Mohammed Atta Senior that his son was onboard American Airlines Flight 11 on that morning of September 11.

"He(Atta) telephoned me the day after.It was in the morning and, as usual, he asked me about my health and whether I had given up smoking yet",he told Fouda,though he was not sure where his son had called him from.
"I am absolutely sure that my son is either somewhere in America or has been liquidated by the Americans"
Exclusive interview with Mohammed Atta senior.
Cairo.
2002.

From the Masterminds Of Terror Book.
By Yosri Fouda and Nick Feilding.
Page 34.

Yet according to the 9/11 Omission report.
He(Atta) apparently placed one last call to his own father on September 9th
Page 249.

Is there any corroboration for Atta's Father's claim?

:shrug:

The Commission cites an authority, i.e.

On Atta’s call to his father, see Intelligence
report, re Atta, Sept. 13, 2001.

Did you read the intelligence report?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the FBI never pretended that any of the identifications was absolute

This indeed is a very comforting thought .....

investigation! I mean, what possible benefit could derive from confirming the ACTUAL identities of the ACTUAL perpetrators? Just like with the anthrax killer, it's better not to know!

if no DNA sample available to match to was not positively identified to begin with.

So because of what then do you think that any sample that the FBI had was positively identified to begin with?

Because of what then was it supposed that a positive identifaction was possible?

If there is a valid reason let's hear it.

:boring:

You will find some DNA of Jarrah in his car won't you.
You will find some DNA of Jarrah in his apartment won't you.

And there is still another way:
If you find one DNA that the Institute claimed to belong to a hijacker in Jarrah's car good for you (it's not hundred percent in this case I agree but still) if you don't find then you have a small problem.

But any way I know you simply don't care about identification. You believe everything the FBI says. Life can sometimes be really simple. But just why do you bother discussing it as you believe WITHOUT ANY PROOFS anything the FBI tells you.

If the suspects were not aboard the aircraft who was aboard the aircraft? There are extra remains to be accounted for.

If you mean to make out that it was then possible to fake the event to the extent of falsifying identities why then would it not be possible to fake a DNA match? Did they fake everything else but somehow forget to fake this?

:shrug:

According to the original FBI the identities of the suspects and their previous whereabouts were "possible".

Is there then any reason to believe the identification to be impossible?

You have not yet given one.

Whether or not any DNA belonging to Jarrah may or may not have been found, that is not the issue. The issue is to positively identify it as belonging exclusively to him, beyond a reasonable doubt.

And not doing DNA matching probably saved taxpayers at least a dollar per 9/11 victim!

Gotta watch that budget deficit!

It's very simple. Why is this so difficult for CT'er to understand.

A possible reason there was no DNA used to identify the hijackers is because the investigator positively identified them by other means.

based on nothing more than wishful speculation.

How do you know that?

The only point I am making is that it is possible that the DNA was not needed to positively identify the hijackers. Why is that difficult to understand. The DNA was also used for purposes other that a tool to ID them, it was used to exclude the hijacker remains from the victims remains.

You act as if it DNA testing for identification purposes is a requirement for the FBI, hence because it was not used to identify them it points to some type of foul play.

That is wild speculation.

go so far as to attempt to defend the fact that the FBI obviously did not conduct the most exhaustive possible investigation into the identities of the 9/11 hijackers.

"We're the Federales! We don't need no steenking forensic evidence!"

What does it establish is the FBi (in your words) did not conduct the most exhaustive possible investigation into the identities of the 9/11 hijackers.

Assuming that is true and forgetting that you really can't know if that is a fact or not, it raises these questions in my mind.

What does that mean? How does that change the investigation of 9/11.

more thoroughly than the identities of the perpetrators of 9/11. Which can only mean that finding the true identities of the perpetrators of 9/11 simply wasn't and isn't a priority, exactly like RH argues.

A new 9/11 FBI CSI show is coming out soon, and the Who tune chosen for its theme will be 905:

Until then, all I know is what I need to know ...

What the hell does that mean?

BTW, just in case you are not aware of this, CSI is fiction.

And the meaning of "true identities" is nebulous. What color is the sky in your world, LARED?

Your comprehension is unfortunately poor.

RH argued that DNA matching would be a waste of time because there is no reason to suppose that the DNA matching of samples casually discovered would do anything to postively identify anybody.

The aurgument is supported by the fact that two definite matches in New York did not positively identify the supects. It proved only that people on board the plane had previously been where they were already known to have been.

Whether or not the identification in any other other respect was or should have been a priority is another issue.

He obviously doesn't care how ridiculous he sounds.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.remains/index.html

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.

Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, professor of forensics at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, believes the discovery is "extremely significant."

"This is the first confirmation that these individuals were on those planes. Now we have their genetics, we can use this information to follow them. Perhaps we can hook them to other individuals," Kobilinsky said.

What arose from the "extremely significant" discovery that would not otherwise have arisen?

With the eventual benefit of hindsight did Dr. Koblinsky ever care to explain that?

Given that Dr Koblinsky's agenda is patently to promote the science of DNA research I would not be so shocked by his propaganda.

You can't be serious.

Can you?

Do you have anything intelligent or constructive to add or do you just turn up here to jerk off by rattling off one cheap and childish insult after another?

:boring:

LARED I asked you this already in this thread:
How did the FBI the hijackers identify positively?
Why was there no need for DNA?

that I can't know that answer. I have only been pointing out that DNA is not required to positively identify someone. There are many other way. A point that seems to be missed or ignored by the CT'ers that seem to be insisting that without DNA we can't really know who the hijacker were.

But did you hear anything about comparing the fingerprints on the boarding cards with the fingerprints eg at the wheel of Jarrah's car?
So just to understand you coorectly: As there are many ways of identifying somebody, well, you haven't heard of anything the FBI did to positively identify the hijackers but that doesn't matter because you simplly believe they have done their job.
Well, that's good for you. But why was Bukhari for two days believed to have been a hijacker and why was Hani only put on the list on September 16?

So: The central question: Who was on the plane? Who are the hijackers? We simply have no proof whatsoever. I find this a bit worrying but anyway.

At any given time an organistion such as the FBI has a certain number of agents to put to work with only 24 hours per day and 7 days per week to use. The moot issue is not then how many dollars to spend but how best to allot the immediately available resources in terms of priority.

You have yet to tell us why the supposed DNA issue should have been any sort of priority. What difference would it make to anything in practice?

I mean, since when does investigating the actual identities of the murderers of 3,000 Americans become some sort of priority?

for investigating this identification subject. It is one of the main points except the question of the scrambling of no interceptors. The identification is part of the non-existing evidence for all the claims of the Bush-government. They have no proof.

Again: they have no proof. But they are the ones who tell us that Mr. x and Mr. Z are murderers. They must prove it - not we and not the families and nobody else. In fair trials.

They must show us:
the fingerprints on the bordcard-sniplets
identifiable fotos of the hijackers entering the planes
identifiable voices on the tapes of the voice recorders
identifiable voices on the tapes of the ATC-plane communication
fotos of the robes they had on
proof of the teeth identity by independent dentists
and the the DNA

and so on.
And do not tell us they have no possibility to prove all that. They have. they could identify nearly everybody else in the AA77 and UAL93 crashes. They have the 9 bodies on ice - the bodies of those alleged hijackers. see: http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/faksimiles.html

I have proved at least the existence of 2 persons Hani Hanjour/Hanjoor, Two Mr. Attas, Paul Thompson prooved two Ziad Jarrahs and so on.

The Bushists have no oroof for their fairy tales. That is all.

Where was this trial whereby you proved the existence of two Hanjours?

Was that the one with yourself as the self appointed Prosecutor, Judge and Jury?

Did you study the course of the trial in Hamburg or were you too busy with examining your own entrails?

Since you made it up.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm sure as agents only work 24 hours a day and 7 days a week it was too much asked for that somebody brings the DNA samples to the Institute so they can match them.

BTW what difference would it make??
Hm, maybe that finally the hijackers could be identified postivly?
:think:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It was reported that in New York the FBI took the trouble to supply DNA samples precisely because they were asked. A public interest had demanded that this to be done, albeit that no positive identification was achieved and could not be achieved because of reasons previously given.

If there is any evidence then of a similar pressure arising elsewhere, then where that evidence?

in this entire discussion is nil. You merely repetitively defend the indefensible and argue the inarguable with no regard whatsoever for how foolish you sound. It's like a Monty Python skit.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.remains/index.html

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.

Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, professor of forensics at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, believes the discovery is "extremely significant."

"This is the first confirmation that these individuals were on those planes. Now we have their genetics, we can use this information to follow them. Perhaps we can hook them to other individuals," Kobilinsky said.

is conspicuously absent.

:boring:

Let's start simple.
Most posters here take on a phony name, can we establish that?

Looking at that name ONLY, can we detect....
gender, age, race, nationality, job, mobility, ethics, politics, criminal background?

We cannot by that name only.

If the poster decides to publish any of those identifier, it doesn't make it a fact. It is only what YOU choose to believe about them based on your own trusting nature.

The poster can lead you to believe anything. It is up to you to accept or dismiss what they say. You can believe if you choose, but you might want to ask yourself who is this I am chatting with?
If this conversation was face to face, would I still accept or dismiss?

This web site is called Democratic Underground.
Does that mean posters are democrats?
Does that mean they are citizen of the US?
Do they live in the US?

Ask yourself does this poster really care about this topic or are they just argumentative? What or who does it serve?

Why would anyone spend hours defending the published accounts?
Just because it is published, that doesn't make it fact.

This is just a WEB site.

Now go wrap your mind around a day of catastrophe.

Consider the source of the information & how quickly it was reported.
Hasn't really changed much from that.

Why would anyone about to commit this crime attach their name to it?

In the US if you committed a crime, wouldn't you be investigated? In the event of your death, wouldn't your family be brought in for questioning?
In some countries, wouldn't your family be held liable?

Some posters question the information, some defend it. Questioning does NOT make the poster a conspiracy theorist. Defending it does NOT make the poster a government agent or freeper. Based on what this web site knows about the posters identity, there is not enough information based in solid fact, to know who the poster is.

So now that you don't know who you are debating with, let's look at what you are debating about.

First consider the source.
What solid, reliable, fact based information gathering and sharing has this source provided in the past and present?

Can you see where I am going with this?

Just to show you that the FBI is interested in DNA and can do their job properly (but still sad that they don't care about matching the DNA samples they spend hours on to find ....)

Here an example from the room Atta and Al Omari are supposed to have stayed on September 10 in Portland (Hotel Comfort Inn). In the following night FBI made their job as eveybody would expect them to:

Even with an empty hotel room, you could have four agents in there for six to eight hours. Getting a photo of one fingerprint can be a half-hour project," said Corrado, who worked on recovering evidence following the crash of Egypt Air Flight 990 in October of 1999. Investigators moved the hijackers' rental car from the Portland jetport to the state police crime laboratory in Augusta. Two days after the hijacking, an FBI forensic team had collected fingerprints, hair and food samples, fibers and a tissue. (Portland Press Herald, 10/14/01)

So, they can find something even in an empty hotel room. Good to know. So we can assume they manage to find something in other hotel rooms and apartments too... So why didn't they bother about providing the Institute with samples?

would the FBI provide samples to the Institute?

The Institute was not investigating the crime. The FBI was investigating the crime.

So if the FBI wanted to match samples, the Institute would presumably be asked to supply samples or DNA profiles to the FBI.

Do you mean to suppose that the Institute never did so? I have never seen anything to substantiate that.

the Institute with DNA samples in the case of AA 11 and UA 175 (see my very first post). So obviously it's not only possible it was simply done. But in case of AA 77 and UA 93 the Institute stated that the FBI DIDN'T provide them with any samples (see my very first point).
So, the question remains: Why?

Btw it makes sense that the FBI does ask the Institute to provide the scientific work for the investigation, doesn't it?

And btw I don't believe that you answered which one of your questions I didn't answer (if you criticise me very directly than I'd like to known what you base your critisim on)

And what do you think about all the oddities, contradictions and clear mistakes surrounding the flight manifest? I mean I don't want to discuss this topic until the next eternity. I don't see any explanations especially for the completely strange stuff on Bukharis & Co. That's why I see the need for an identification with the help of DNA. I don't really think this is too much of CT too take. But if you insists that there was no need to do so then I have to insist on my questions.

with Flight 11 and 175.

That was a New York Medical Examiner afair.

Oddities contradictions and mistakes prove only that people get things wrong. To know what happened look for consistency and corroboration.

Imagine for a moment if the official version had been that no Arabs were involved. People would be jumping up all the Internet to say that none but stupid sheeple would ever believe that. They bought tickets. Their movements are otherwise unexplained. They knew each other. They went to flight schools. They went to Afghanistan.

Which unanswered questions do you have in mind? There were so many.

True different Institutes were in charge of 11, 175 and 77, 93. But the New York case shows that the FBI asked experts to do the matching. So why didn't the FBI provide the Institute with samples? This questions remains and remains. Do you see any results anywhere of trying to match the DNA? Then please let me know!

Concerning the identities. It's of no importance what I think. I believe it's the FBI's job to clarify if the suspects have actually been on the plane. And given all the oddities, contradictions and mistakes the flight manifest I really don't see how one can simply rely on exactly this manifest and only base the investigations on circumstantial evidence. And btw look at the Bukhari thread: the four are really the perfect suspects: Everthing fits. The only problem: They weren't the suspects.


Which unanswered questions I do have in mind?
I think I've repeated them often enough in this thread. Moreover I underline that the Bukhari stuff is the strangest. So, what do you think about it?

Btw: You reproached me of rarely answering any questions. So, please have the kindness and point out the questions that I'm supposed not to have answered and I'll be happy to give you my answers as soon as possible. If there isn't any open question then I wonder what sense this personal comment is supposed to have.

Hi,

could anybody provide a link to the official AFIP-Report?

Thank you, Fanny

Aren´t there more detailed reports?

I have a pdf of Oct. 01 ("AFIP-letter") which describes all the procedere. (I cannot find it online, I could send it to everybody interested)

But there should be a more actual report.

Fanny

The problem is that the original link broke down. So the only way for me to find it online was the way back engine. Maybe the homepage of the INstitute provides an archive (haven't looked there yet). Of course I'd be interested in the AFIP-letter (although the question of procedure I believe is less interesting than the question why the hijackers remained unidentified and named "John Doe"). But please can you email me the AFIO-letter?
Thanks!

any DNA could even survive the "crash of Flight 93" or even the one that supposedly flew into the Pentagon?

Extreme heat can destroy DNA

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00136.htm

"DNA is distroyed if a living thing
is heated: the cells of the organism are degraded by
the heat, and that liberates enzymes, called DNAses,
that eat away the DNA. So the cell destroys its own
DNA when it is dying. The long DNA strands are
degraded to short fragments, and these no longer clump
together."

is surly worth it's own thread.
as far as i can see all scientists implied in the investigation considered it possible for all four flights to get DNA samples. But I lack the knowledge to elaboarte further on it.

For the moment let's just believe them.
This brings us to my central question:
Why especially in the case for UA 93 and AA 77 diesen't the FBI bother to give DNA samples to the Institute in order to identify the hijackers positively?

As nobody so far answered the above mentioned questions I try again in the hope that maybe a new member finds them.