Gate agents

[thatsmystory]

One would think there would have been more accounts of the 9/11 gate agents. It seems rather important to confirm that the named hijackers were identified by the gate agents, especially considering no video was released of the boarding gates.

Here is an account of the Flight 93 gate:

A United Airlines manager finds that a gate agent has already singled out boarding passes belonging to four suspicious passengers who were on Flight 93. Terri Rizzuto is the United Airlines station manager at Newark Airport, from where Flight 93 departed. Some time after hearing that this plane has crashed, she speaks on the phone with the FBI, which is requesting the plane’s manifest and its Passenger Name Record (PNR). After arranging permission to release these, she goes to Gate 17, from where she knows Flight 93 departed, wanting to talk to her staff there. When she arrives, a supervisor hands her four boarding passes. The supervisor tells her they are “The men, who did this maybe,” and points her toward one of the gate agents who had boarded the passengers onto the flight. When Rizzuto asks the gate agent, “How do you know?” he replies: “They were too well-dressed. Too well-dressed for that early in the morning. And their muscles rippled below their suits.… [A]nd their eyes.” [Murphy, 2006, pp. 71-73] However, this report of men with rippling muscles contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s description of the so-called “muscle” hijackers (i.e. the non-pilot hijackers) on the four targeted planes: They “were not physically imposing,” with the majority of them being “slender in build.”

Flight 93 gate agent pulls suspicious boarding passes (http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=gate+agent&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go)

Strange huh?

[Brainache]

Do you have a point?

People say all kinds of things on a day like that. I don't find any of this very strange at all. Maybe I'm missing something...

[1337m4n]

Strange huh?

No.

[beachnut]

What is the point? It will be 7 years in 5 days.
7 years and the only clue less people on 9/11 are those with a name opposite of their product of lies and fantasy.

The standard to grade your ability to understand 9/11 is set by the Passengers of Flight 93. These people took minutes to figure out 9/11, and took action.

Then you have a pathetic group of individuals who lack knowledge on 9/11, and have not got one single shred of evidence to support their ideas in 7 years.

The standard for understanding 9/11 is minutes set by people who stood up and took action.

The other end of the scale is made up of 9/11 truth, no clue after 7 years.

Minutes for the best, 7 years for 9/11 truth and no hint they will ever figure out 9/11.

So what is your point? The strange thing is your lack of comment on your own OP. Say what you mean. What is your point?

[AJM8125]

Strange huh?

Let's see...

Three other aircraft had just crashed prior to 93 in obvious acts of terrorism. If I'm working the gate on 93, then yeah, I'm going to single out the arabs on the flight. Call me crazy...:rolleyes:

[Confuseling]

Muscles rippling could mean lots of things. They were perhaps tense, and pent up. So would you have been.

[njslim]

Gate agent, Michael Tuohey, in Portland Maine remembers checking in ATTA and muscle
hijacker Abdul Alamari onto flight to Boston connecting to Flight 11. They had first class
tickets worth $2500 which said was unusual - ATTA's demeanor was angry and made
Tuohey very uncomfortable.

[CurtC]

Strange huh?

I'm sorry to have to ask, but could you point to what you think is strange? This seems un-strange. Are you talking about the description by one person of the hijackers as having muscles that were rippling, and another as slender-built? Even if eyewitnesses were perfect, is there any conflict with those descriptions?

[thatsmystory]

What is the point? It will be 7 years in 5 days.
7 years and the only clue less people on 9/11 are those with a name opposite of their product of lies and fantasy.

The standard to grade your ability to understand 9/11 is set by the Passengers of Flight 93. These people took minutes to figure out 9/11, and took action.

Then you have a pathetic group of individuals who lack knowledge on 9/11, and have not got one single shred of evidence to support their ideas in 7 years.

The standard for understanding 9/11 is minutes set by people who stood up and took action.

The other end of the scale is made up of 9/11 truth, no clue after 7 years.

Minutes for the best, 7 years for 9/11 truth and no hint they will ever figure out 9/11.

So what is your point? The strange thing is your lack of comment on your own OP. Say what you mean. What is your point?
After seven years of endless political exploitation it would be nice if the government could prove the named hijackers were on the planes.

What did the gate agents tell the FBI? Did they confirm the visual ID's? We are told there were no cameras at Logan but AFAIK (yes I could be wrong) there were cameras at Dulles and Newark.

The comment from the Flight 93 gate agent suggests the people he saw may not have been the same people ID'ed by the FBI. We don't know because all so secretive.

[Travis]

Ahh, yes, the absence of a Youtube video of the FBI interrogating the gate agents is proof that the FBI never talked to said gate agents.

There aren't any Youtube videos with me in them either......I guess I don't exist.

[Reality Believer]

After seven years of endless political exploitation it would be nice if the government could prove the named hijackers were on the planes.

...... We don't know because all so secretive.

Here is the government's reply: The gate agent's flight manifests released as part of the Moussoui trial. Satisfied? If not, what evidence do you require? :confused:

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8797&d=1192076050http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8798&d=1192076342http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8799&d=1192076342http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8800&d=1192076358

[Corsair 115]

After seven years of endless political exploitation it would be nice if the government could prove the named hijackers were on the planes.Uh, are you new to the world of politics? Politicians exploit events for their own benefit all the time. They need not be the agents of the event at all. Indeed, one can argue that a good politician is one who can deftly use any event to his or her own ends.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

In was watching a program a couple days ago on the bombing of Air India flight 182 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_182).

They mentioned briefly how one of the bombers was able to get his deadly package onto the aircraft by bullying and harrassing a young woman at the baggage counter into violating protocol and checking a suitcase that hadn't been properly examined. The talking head being interviewed on the program mentioned that the woman who allowed the bomb through continues suffering serious emotional and psychiatric problems stemming from her role in the tragedy to this day.

I can't imagine what it must be like for the gate check or passenger processing people from 9/11 to live with the aftermath of that days events. Always second guessing themselves, not being able to go a day without seeing or hearing "9/11" on TV, the radio, a newspaper.

If you are going to start conspiracy crap with these people then shut your @#$%ing pie-hole. They don't need a bunch of self-centered tinfoiler sociopaths making their undeserved pain worse just so they can stroke their own egos.

You monsters could show us you have some humanity in you, leave this one alone.

[thatsmystory]

Here is the government's reply: The gate agent's flight manifests released as part of the Moussoui trial. Satisfied? If not, what evidence do you require? :confused:

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8797&d=1192076050http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8798&d=1192076342http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8799&d=1192076342http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8800&d=1192076358
We heard from Michael Touhey who was a ticket agent at Portland Jetport. Why didn't we hear the accounts of the gate agents working 9/11 flights? Was there video of any of the boarding gates?

For example, in the Dulles baggage checkpoint video we see a man who looks nothing like Hani Hanjour. Oddly enough, a man named Mosear Caned was originally listed as a hijacker on Flight 77. This name was switched with Hanjour's. In the Moussaoui trial, Hanjour's name was on the manifest. Thus one must wonder if a name on the manifest constitutes definitive proof.

On September 13, the FBI says there were 18 hijackers, and releases their names. Hani Hanjour’s name is not on the list. [CNN, 9/13/2001] On the morning of the next day, CNN announces on the air that “CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers that is supposed to be officially released by justice sometime later today.” An announcer reads the list, which actually contains 19 names. It is the same list as the day before, except for one new name: Mosear Caned. (Note that the name is a very rough phonetic spelling from a CNN transcript.) [CNN, 9/14/2001] Later in the day, the list is revised. Caned is gone and is replaced by Hani Hanjour. It is never explained who Caned is, how he got on the list, or even how his name is correctly spelled. No name even remotely similar to his appears on any of the released manifests of the hijacked 9/11 flights. [CNN, 9/14/2001; Associated Press, 9/14/2001] A few days later, it is reported that Hanjour’s “name was not on the American Airlines manifest for [Flight 77] because he may not have had a ticket.”

Hanjour added to the Flight 77 hijacker list (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091301hijackerlist#a091301hijack erlist)

[Travis]

There was an urban legend that one of the gate agents committed suicide. Thank goodness that wasn't true.

[thatsmystory]

In was watching a program a couple days ago on the bombing of Air India flight 182 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_182).

They mentioned briefly how one of the bombers was able to get his deadly package onto the aircraft by bullying and harrassing a young woman at the baggage counter into violating protocol and checking a suitcase that hadn't been properly examined. The talking head being interviewed on the program mentioned that the woman who allowed the bomb through continues suffering serious emotional and psychiatric problems stemming from her role in the tragedy to this day.

I can't imagine what it must be like for the gate check or passenger processing people from 9/11 to live with the aftermath of that days events. Always second guessing themselves, not being able to go a day without seeing or hearing "9/11" on TV, the radio, a newspaper.

If you are going to start conspiracy crap with these people then shut your @#$%ing pie-hole. They don't need a bunch of self-centered tinfoiler sociopaths making their undeserved pain worse just so they can stroke their own egos.

You monsters could show us you have some humanity in you, leave this one alone.

This is nonsense. The gate agents didn't do a damn thing wrong. It was intelligence agents who sat on intel who should feel guilty but evidently do not.

If privacy is an issue, the FBI could release the interview transcripts with names blacked out. Very easy. That way privacy is respected and the public finds out what they witnessed at the boarding gates. Video footage could be edited to black out airline employee identities.

[Totovader]

We heard from Michael Touhey who was a ticket agent at Portland Jetport. Why didn't we hear the accounts of the gate agents working 9/11 flights? Was there video of any of the boarding gates?

For example, in the Dulles baggage checkpoint video we see a man who looks nothing like Hani Hanjour. Oddly enough, a man named Mosear Caned was originally listed as a hijacker on Flight 77. This name was switched with Hanjour's. In the Moussaoui trial, Hanjour's name was on the manifest. Thus one must wonder if a name on the manifest constitutes definitive proof.

Now we can see why you think it's odd- this little lie of yours that the hijackers were never identified: you won't accept any evidence of their indentification whatsoever. You completely dodged the evidence and just restated your question as if it hadn't been addressed.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This is nonsense. The gate agents didn't do a damn thing wrong.

Then keep them out of your retarded theories.

[thatsmystory]

Uh, are you new to the world of politics? Politicians exploit events for their own benefit all the time. They need not be the agents of the event at all. Indeed, one can argue that a good politician is one who can deftly use any event to his or her own ends.
Are you familiar with the conduct of Bush officials in the lead up to 9/11?

[thatsmystory]

Then keep them out of your retarded theories.
It isn't a theory. I trust them 100% more than I do the 9/11 Commission or Bush officials. Thus, their observations are extremely valuable.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Right... asking a twoofer not to disasterbate is like asking a child molester to stay outta the "Dora The Explorer" aisle in Toys R Us.

I shouldn't have bothered.

[thatsmystory]

Now we can see why you think it's odd- this little lie of yours that the hijackers were never identified: you won't accept any evidence of their indentification whatsoever. You completely dodged the evidence and just restated your question as if it hadn't been addressed.
I don't trust the FBI. No lying involved. IMO, video footage and the observations of gate agents would go a long way to confirming the accuracy of the manifests.

[thatsmystory]

Right... asking a twoofer not to disasterbate is like asking a child molester to stay outta the "Dora The Explorer" aisle in Toys R Us.

I shouldn't have bothered.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Typical authoritarian debunker.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Asking you to show that you have some sense of right and wrong isn't authoritarian.

[Totovader]

I don't trust the FBI. No lying involved. IMO, video footage and the observations of gate agents would go a long way to confirming the accuracy of the manifests.

"Not trusting" is a world of difference from automatically disbelieving everything despite the evidence. I really don't trust the FBI- but that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to make claims without any evidence, and just ignore the evidence I don't like.

And don't kid yourself- we have video of the hijackers going through security, we have DNA evidence, we have taped confessions, we have a complete timeline, we have plenty of evidence to substantiate this: you are simply asking for something that is unreasonable, unnecessary, and frankly quite odd so you can claim that absence of anything equals a conspiracy. Even if we had YouTube videos readily available for you- you would dismiss those as "government provided" and be right back at square one. No evidence will convince you that you are wrong. As others have eluded to:

Please provide your birth certificate with matching fingerprints, birth parents and their DNA records as well as a YouTube video of your birth with sworn statements from all the doctors, nurses, and staff involved.

Any piece of that absurd request that is not provided means you do not exist.

Rational people call this the God of the Gaps Fallacy- in between laughing sessions, of course.


I happen to be a big believer in the truth: the government does plenty of its own screwups without crazy conspiracists inventing them and making it look like people who have a natural and healthy distrust of government are wackjobs. Conspiracists give government a pass- making it seem like government is not only efficient, but collected and capable. Conspiracists dismiss the true nature of humanity and replace it with ignorance, stupidity, and a general distrust for science.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Typical authoritarian debunker.


I... don't think you know how to use that word properly. It makes no sense in a response to Sword_Of_Truth's post.

authoritarian

adj.

1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience.


Perhaps you can explain.

[T.A.M.]

I don't trust the FBI. No lying involved. IMO, video footage and the observations of gate agents would go a long way to confirming the accuracy of the manifests.

There it is...I was waiting for it.

FBI is bad, FBI is in on it.

Welcome to ignore truther.

TAM:)

[chillzero]

Is somebody expecting gate agents to remember a handful of people who passed through their gates in a matter of seconds, amongst the hundreds of people who did so that same day?

[CptColumbo]

Is somebody expecting gate agents to remember a handful of people who passed through their gates in a matter of seconds, amongst the hundreds of people who did so that same day?A few months ago I was meeting my Uncle at MSP and was going to fly with him to DLH. I checked the board for what gate he would be arriving at, but while I was waiting they changed the gate. I didn't find out until after his plane had disembarked. I ran to the gate he arrived at and asked the gate agents if they remembered him coming off. He's an older man in hi late 60's, bald, missing most of his teeth, has a goatee and only one arm. They didn't remember him, but he had gotten off the plane and was waiting at the gate for our connecting flight.

[DC]

a supervisor hands her four boarding passes.

i hope the FBI hired that guy, he seems to be an amazing investigator........

[Confuseling]

I keep posting this video. But it says absolutely everything that needs to be said about eyewitness testimony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAnKvo-fPs0

[doesn't seem to want to embed]

[parky76]

truthers are really getting desperate....or bored.

[Walter Ego]

I don't trust the FBI. No lying involved. IMO, video footage and the observations of gate agents would go a long way to confirming the accuracy of the manifests.

Since you need to see it on video, the first part of this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6666420467125611107) National Geographic program (which will be re-broadcast later this week) shows the details of the fight boardings on 9/11, including airport security video and testimony from gate agents (starting at about the 2:15 mark).

But think about it for a minute, truther. The identity of the hijacked and crashed planes was known very quickly on the morning of 9/11. Don’t you think the ticket and gate agents were saying to themselves, “My God, I let those hijackers on the plane!” And don't you think they were pulling and reviewing the flight manifests even before the FBI arrived?

These is no mystery about who hijacked the planes and what flights they were on except in the alternate reality of Trutherdom.

[DC]

Since you need to see it on video, the first part of this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6666420467125611107) National Geographic program (which will be re-broadcast later this week) shows the details of the fight boardings on 9/11, including airport security video and testimony from gate agents (starting at about the 2:15 mark).

But think about it for a minute, truther. The identity of the hijacked and crashed planes was known very quickly on the morning of 9/11. Don’t you think the ticket and gate agents were saying to themselves, “My God, I let those hijackers on the plane!” And don't you think they were pulling and reviewing the flight manifests even before the FBI arrived?

These is no mystery about who hijacked the planes and what flights they were on except in the alternate reality of Trutherdom.

who and how , based on what knewed the hijackers ID in the morning of 9/11?

[Totovader]

who and how , based on what knewed the hijackers ID in the morning of 9/11?

Do we have any translators in here? This seems like a question... but I can't tell if it's a relevant one or not...

[CptColumbo]

Do we have any translators in here? This seems like a question... but I can't tell if it's a relevant one or not...I'm not fluent in "Wackoese." :)

[16.5]

who and how , based on what knewed the hijackers ID in the morning of 9/11?

Wait... what?

The list of things Truthers need to be satisfied is staggering, and impossible.

How easy for them.

[Bobert]

Then you have a pathetic group of individuals who lack knowledge on 9/11, and have not got one single shred of evidence to support their ideas in 7 years.


We must ALL ADMIT that the 9-11 Truth Movement does have 1 very important piece of evidence correct.
That would be that 9-11 did in fact occur on 9-11.
:D
Of course it wouldn't surprise me to learn that truthers are claiming that the NWO has s gizmo which can double the rotation of the earth without us knowing so that maybe it was the 12 when 9-11 occurred.
BTW have you ever noticed how the spell check feature tries to change "NWO"?
Could the spell check software developers also be in on 9-11?

[steve s]

It isn't a theory.

You're absolutely right. Theories have to be based on evidence. And you don't even have that.

Steve S.

[thatsmystory]

There it is...I was waiting for it.

FBI is bad, FBI is in on it.

Welcome to ignore truther.

TAM:)
There it is. A debunker relies on authority regardless of their conduct. Brilliant. It's called a double standard. Your skepticism appears to have limits.

[thatsmystory]

I... don't think you know how to use that word properly. It makes no sense in a response to Sword_Of_Truth's post.




Perhaps you can explain.

twoofer not to disasterbate
This comes across as authoritarian...mocking someone for daring to challenge state findings. Godforbid citizens question their government.

I thought skepticism was welcome on the JREF forum. Evidently this is not the case.

[Corsair 115]

Are you familiar with the conduct of Bush officials in the lead up to 9/11?I was addressing your original point, which (to me) strongly implied that politicians only exploit events they themselves had a hand in creating.

I thought skepticism was welcome on the JREF forum. Evidently this is not the case.Now if only you applied skepticism of equal vigour to your own conspiracy theories...

[thatsmystory]

Is somebody expecting gate agents to remember a handful of people who passed through their gates in a matter of seconds, amongst the hundreds of people who did so that same day?
Maybe they didn't remember anyone. It wouldn't have been hundreds of people on that day though. All remaining flights were cancelled fairly early in the day. We don't know what they remember. Touhey (at Portland Jetport) was weired out by Atta so one wonders if the Flight 11 gate agent had a similar reaction. What about video footage of the boarding gates? If the FBI has it why won't they release it?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This comes across as authoritarian...mocking someone for daring to challenge state findings. Godforbid citizens question their government.


Mocking those that you disagree with is not a hallmark of authoritarianism. Where did you ever get the idea that it was?

[thatsmystory]

Mocking those that you disagree is not a hallmark of authoritarianism. Where did you ever get the idea that it was?
What appears to upset some debunkers is the gall of someone daring to question state findings.

Where is the skepticism of the FBI?

[beachnut]

What appears to upset some debunkers is the gall of someone daring to question state findings.

Where is the skepticism of the FBI?
What does this have to with the false 9/11 conspiracy theories proven wrong?

You can't even put together your conspiracy theory ideas based on this, you have to slow roll your ideas. Get out your idea on what this means and tie it a conspiracy theory, a complete story of your idea.



7 years and not one piece of evidence, and not any complete stories of conspiracy theories.

[Slayhamlet]

Maybe they didn't remember anyone. It wouldn't have been hundreds of people on that day though. All remaining flights were cancelled fairly early in the day. We don't know what they remember. Touhey (at Portland Jetport) was weired out by Atta so one wonders if the Flight 11 gate agent had a similar reaction. What about video footage of the boarding gates? If the FBI has it why won't they release it?

Why don't you provide us some evidence that it even exists, let alone that the FBI has it? There was a lot of footage and still pictures released of the hijackers in other parts of the airports. Why are the boarding gates so important?

[chillzero]

Maybe they didn't remember anyone.

Indeed. So, why ask:

One would think there would have been more accounts of the 9/11 gate agents. It seems rather important to confirm that the named hijackers were identified by the gate agents

Why do you think there should be more accounts from gate agents? What do you think that these hijackers would have done that would have made them stand out from everyone else, to people who barely glance at anyone for more than a second? Particularly given that those hijackers would be aware that it was vital to their mission not to stand out?

[DGM]

I'm not sure what this thread is all about, the gate agent and the airlines did nothing wrong on 9/11. They (the terrorists) exploited a weakness in our system. Live with it.

[AJM8125]

I'm not sure what this thread is all about, the gate agent and the airlines did nothing wrong on 9/11. They (the terrorists) exploited a weakness in our system. Live with it.

Other than trying to imply some kind government of cover up, which s/he has failed to make, the OP is pointless. Dead thread.

[DGM]

Other than trying to imply some kind government of cover up, which s/he has failed to make, the OP is pointless. Dead thread.
This subject is a little close to home for me. A good friend of mine was a gate agent that checked in flight 11. To this day she is not quite right even though all of us assure her regularly that she did nothing wrong. 9/11 has many more victims then those who died. I think the "truth" movement needs to realize this and stop throwing random actuations out at will.

[thatsmystory]

This subject is a little close to home for me. A good friend of mine was a gate agent that checked in flight 11. To this day she is not quite right even though all of us assure her regularly that she did nothing wrong. 9/11 has many more victims then those who died. I think the "truth" movement needs to realize this and stop throwing random actuations out at will.
I don't know what you are talking about. Of course the gate agents did nothing wrong and I haven't suggested this.

The gate agents MAY have been able to make positive ID's of the 19 men named by the FBI. Also, boarding gate footage would help in this regard. DNA would work but the hijackers' DNA was never analyzed to confirm their identification.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

DNA would work but the hijackers' DNA was never analyzed to confirm their identification.


Do you know how DNA identification works? You are aware that a person's name isn't etched into their DNA, right?

[AJM8125]

Wally Miller has the DNA identification of the Flight 93 hijackers.

[thatsmystory]

Do you know how DNA identification works? You are aware that a person's name isn't etched into their DNA, right?
Sure. The FBI claims to have found 10 DNA samples:

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.

"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said.

Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm)

How would the FBI know that the 10 DNA samples were those of the hijackers?

[beachnut]

Sure. The FBI claims to have found 10 DNA samples:

How would the FBI know that the 10 DNA samples were those of the hijackers?
Got Research?

They matched all the DNA on flight 93 to families of the dead who died at the hands of 4 terrorist. The reminding FOUR DNA samples and body parts were the terrorist!


I have to check it, but I think samples from the cars and hotel rooms and other things the terrorist left behind were used to verify they were the same. They also use logic.
oops, you already posted the evidence for this.
You posted the answer, are you using logic? (from what you posted, I could answer your question using logic)

Are you a kid? You post the answers to your own questions but appear to lack the experience and logic to connect the dots you provide.

[thatsmystory]

Got Research?

They matched all the DNA on flight 93 to families of the dead who died at the hands of 4 terrorist. The reminding FOUR DNA samples and body parts were the terrorist!

oops, you already posted the evidence for this.
You posted the answer, are you using logic? (from what you posted, I could answer your question using logic)

Are you a kid? You post the answers to your own questions but appear to lack the experience and logic to connect the dots you provide.
The point of the OP was to question whether the hijacker ID process was conclusive. Thus, four non identified Flight 93 DNA samples doesn't mean these four people were the same as the four hijackers named by the FBI.

How did the FBI know that they had any samples of the hijackers BEFORE Shaler's team matched two of the samples to DNA recovered from the WTC site? For example, maybe accessories drove the cars...support teams who assisted the hijackers. I'm not saying that is the case. Just that it's difficult to understand the FBI's confidence in determining that they indeed had the 10 hijacker DNA samples.

[chillzero]

I don't know what you are talking about. Of course the gate agents did nothing wrong and I haven't suggested this.

The gate agents MAY have been able to make positive ID's of the 19 men named by the FBI. Also, boarding gate footage would help in this regard. DNA would work but the hijackers' DNA was never analyzed to confirm their identification.

Perhaps you could answer post 48?
You seem to have missed it.

[Foolmewunz]

Is this the latest CIT type thing. The TM is always competing to find the latest hot meme, after all. Is Thatsmystory just trying to creat a new cause celebre amongst the bored troops?

To the OP....

Do you notice that they don't even confirm whether or not the four boarding passes were the ones belonging to the hijackers. He could've identified the backfield for the Maine Bears football team, for crissake! No where does it say that the agent actually identified the right people.... just that he handed over some boarding passes. Until you find The Rest of the Story, Thatsmystory, this is just a weak attempt at meme-creation.

Is it your dream that you'll see AJ and Jason asking about the forgotten heroes, The Boarding Clerks, and you'll be able to say "Hey, Look at Me! I Thought of That, First", right?

[beachnut]

The point of the OP was to question whether the hijacker ID process was conclusive. Thus, four non identified Flight 93 DNA samples doesn't mean these four people were the same as the four hijackers named by the FBI.

How did the FBI know that they had any samples of the hijackers BEFORE Shaler's team matched two of the samples to DNA recovered from the WTC site? For example, maybe accessories drove the cars...support teams who assisted the hijackers. I'm not saying that is the case. Just that it's difficult to understand the FBI's confidence in determining that they indeed had the 10 hijacker DNA samples.
The car that never leaves the parking lot! lol The luggage that missed the flight and was never picked up. OMG, I am going to be an FBI agent. lol

You ask the easy questions; you also look up the answers. This is like you asking me for a book, and you have it in your hand.

[thatsmystory]

Indeed. So, why ask:

Why do you think there should be more accounts from gate agents? What do you think that these hijackers would have done that would have made them stand out from everyone else, to people who barely glance at anyone for more than a second? Particularly given that those hijackers would be aware that it was vital to their mission not to stand out?
Touhey remembered Atta. Maybe the Flight 11 gate agent had the same reaction and thus could recall seeing him. Some people are good at remembering faces. Look at the Flight 93 gate agent. Evidently, he was able to pull the boarding cards for the four men he suspected of being hijackers. According to his account, they did stand out. Again, there is no suggestion that the gate agents should have picked up on something. The issue is what they remembered about the passengers who boarded the flights. Maybe they remembered nothing, maybe they were able to identify one or more of the FBI's named hijackers. Why wasn't this information released? Names could have been blacked out to protect privacy.

[johnny karate]

How did the FBI know that they had any samples of the hijackers BEFORE Shaler's team matched two of the samples to DNA recovered from the WTC site? For example, maybe accessories drove the cars...support teams who assisted the hijackers. I'm not saying that is the case. Just that it's difficult to understand the FBI's confidence in determining that they indeed had the 10 hijacker DNA samples.

The confidence in the accuracy of the hijackers identification doesn't stop with the FBI. It extends to every professional investigator and law enforcement official on the planet, none of whom in seven years have expressed any of these same doubts or suspicions about the FBI's identification methods. As a matter of fact, the only people expressing these doubts and suspicions seem to be incredulous and ignorant Truthers.

I wonder why that is.

If you want to solve a mystery, maybe start with that one.

[DC]

OMG, I am going to be an FBI agent. lol


:dl:

[beachnut]

This subject is a little close to home for me. A good friend of mine was a gate agent that checked in flight 11. To this day she is not quite right even though all of us assure her regularly that she did nothing wrong. 9/11 has many more victims then those who died. I think the "truth" movement needs to realize this and stop throwing random actuations out at will.
Very true, many people are in those shoes.

The disrespect of truthers is based on their complete stupidity on 9/11. Their lack of respect is pathetic

[Jonnyclueless]

Maybe the hijackers had drivers? Hello? DNA from the passengers matched DNA found on the steering wheel of the cars, thus whoever was driving the car was on the plane. It's really not that hard to figure this stuff out. So let's see.

DNA found at scene, matches DNA on steering wheel of car. Car rented to person who is member of AlQeada. That person also bought tickets for that flight, and left material in teh car that shows involvement. That person has money trails that show his activity and further prove involvement with Al Qeada. That person seen in videos with Bin Laden. That person shown to be registered in flight school and witnesses recall person not having any desire to land. We can go on and on.

But it's just astounding how someone can be idiotic enough to see all that and think "Nah, that can't be the guy". Of course this would be the same kind of person who would watch the planes hit the buildings which then collapse and say "Nah, that couldn't have been it".

[thatsmystory]

Very true, many people are in those shoes.

The disrespect of truthers is based on their complete stupidity on 9/11. Their lack of respect is pathetic
It really respects the victims to have politicians and officials (like Tenet) exploit their tragic deaths while refusing to account for their conduct, hiding behind claims of national security.

Authoritarianism isn't patriotism.

[thatsmystory]

Maybe the hijackers had drivers? Hello? DNA from the passengers matched DNA found on the steering wheel of the cars, thus whoever was driving the car was on the plane. It's really not that hard to figure this stuff out. So let's see.

Look at the sequence. The FBI claimed they had DNA of the hijackers before the DNA was matched to two of the passengers. How did the FBI know before the DNA was matched? Did they submit 50 DNA samples assuming that 10 were the hijackers? How did they know hair from a hotel room was the hair of an al Qaeda operative? Or skin from a steering wheel was that of an al Qaeda operative? I don't know much about DNA but because I am curious and unafraid to ask even stupid questions I wonder about the integrity of the DNA samples attained by the FBI. Integrity=scientifically useful sample.

[beachnut]

Maybe the hijackers had drivers? Hello? DNA from the passengers matched DNA found on the steering wheel of the cars, thus whoever was driving the car was on the plane. It's really not that hard to figure this stuff out. So let's see.

DNA found at scene, matches DNA on steering wheel of car. Car rented to person who is member of AlQeada. That person also bought tickets for that flight, and left material in teh car that shows involvement. That person has money trails that show his activity and further prove involvement with Al Qeada. That person seen in videos with Bin Laden. That person shown to be registered in flight school and witnesses recall person not having any desire to land. We can go on and on.

But it's just astounding how someone can be idiotic enough to see all that and think "Nah, that can't be the guy". Of course this would be the same kind of person who would watch the planes hit the buildings which then collapse and say "Nah, that couldn't have been it".
Why are people in the truth movement unable to understand the evidence? Why have they stopped using their brains and become puppets, blindly spewing hearsay and lies manufactured by the "leaders" of the movement? Why do they appear to be cult like zombies chanting movement slogans? With all the evidence, why do truthers lack the comprehension to make the connection with the truth?

[Tbone]

Look at the sequence. The FBI claimed they had DNA of the hijackers before the DNA was matched to two of the passengers.

If this is what you are drawing from the article linked earlier, then you are reading it wrong.

[chillzero]

Touhey remembered Atta. Maybe the Flight 11 gate agent had the same reaction and thus could recall seeing him. Some people are good at remembering faces. Look at the Flight 93 gate agent. Evidently, he was able to pull the boarding cards for the four men he suspected of being hijackers. According to his account, they did stand out. Again, there is no suggestion that the gate agents should have picked up on something. The issue is what they remembered about the passengers who boarded the flights. Maybe they remembered nothing, maybe they were able to identify one or more of the FBI's named hijackers. Why wasn't this information released? Names could have been blacked out to protect privacy.

So ... let me follow your logic ....

One person remember one one hijacker.
Another was able to pull out boarding cards for four men he suspected (did he pull the right ones? Did they have names on them? Do you have a link to this claim?)

This information is available, clerly, because you know it.
But you are starting this thread to ask why more information is available, while fully admitting this information might be all that there is?

What information do you expect should be released and what evidence do you have that it exists, given your own admission that there may not be any more?

And why does the non-release of that information, given the wealth of other evidence, point to anything suspicious at all?

[doobiedoright]

Since you need to see it on video, the first part of this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6666420467125611107) National Geographic program (which will be re-broadcast later this week) shows the details of the fight boardings on 9/11, including airport security video and testimony from gate agents (starting at about the 2:15 mark).

But think about it for a minute, truther. The identity of the hijacked and crashed planes was known very quickly on the morning of 9/11. Don’t you think the ticket and gate agents were saying to themselves, “My God, I let those hijackers on the plane!” And don't you think they were pulling and reviewing the flight manifests even before the FBI arrived?

These is no mystery about who hijacked the planes and what flights they were on except in the alternate reality of Trutherdom.





Bingo



I have watched this a couple of times already.
Pay attention truther,you might actually learn something!

[doobiedoright]

Maybe they didn't remember anyone. It wouldn't have been hundreds of people on that day though. All remaining flights were cancelled fairly early in the day. We don't know what they remember. Touhey (at Portland Jetport) was weired out by Atta so one wonders if the Flight 11 gate agent had a similar reaction. What about video footage of the boarding gates? If the FBI has it why won't they release it?



It has been on TV and will be again this week I am sure.Read the thread for info!!!

[thatsmystory]

If this is what you are drawing from the article linked earlier, then you are reading it wrong.

Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.

"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said.

How am I reading it wrong? Somehow the FBI knew they turned over all 10 DNA profiles. How could they know this for certain? Wouldn't they need to wait until Borakove's team was able to match the 10 profiles with passenger DNA? How was the FBI able to be so precise?

[thatsmystory]

It has been on TV and will be again this week I am sure.Read the thread for info!!!
The clip was of Touhey at Portland Jetport. Why did we hear from Touhey but not from the 9/11 flight gate agents?

[thatsmystory]

So ... let me follow your logic ....

One person remember one one hijacker.
Another was able to pull out boarding cards for four men he suspected (did he pull the right ones? Did they have names on them? Do you have a link to this claim?)

This information is available, clerly, because you know it.
But you are starting this thread to ask why more information is available, while fully admitting this information might be all that there is?

What information do you expect should be released and what evidence do you have that it exists, given your own admission that there may not be any more?

And why does the non-release of that information, given the wealth of other evidence, point to anything suspicious at all?
The gate agents were interviewed by the FBI. It would be nice to know what they told the FBI.

[chillzero]

The gate agents were interviewed by the FBI. It would be nice to know what they told the FBI.


"nice to know" ?
Why?

Why does it matter what they told them? Because it seems to me that apart from the two you already mention, there's probably not a lot to tell.

And again - why does the non-release of that information, given the wealth of other evidence, point to anything suspicious at all?

[thatsmystory]

"nice to know" ?
Why?

Why does it matter what they told them? Because it seems to me that apart from the two you already mention, there's probably not a lot to tell.

And again - why does the non-release of that information, given the wealth of other evidence, point to anything suspicious at all?
The only way to know for sure is for the information to be released.

I'm looking for more circumstantial evidence to confirm that the FBI's list of 19 hijackers was accurate.

[Jonnyclueless]

Look at the sequence. The FBI claimed they had DNA of the hijackers before the DNA was matched to two of the passengers. How did the FBI know before the DNA was matched? Did they submit 50 DNA samples assuming that 10 were the hijackers? How did they know hair from a hotel room was the hair of an al Qaeda operative? Or skin from a steering wheel was that of an al Qaeda operative? I don't know much about DNA but because I am curious and unafraid to ask even stupid questions I wonder about the integrity of the DNA samples attained by the FBI. Integrity=scientifically useful sample.

That's simply not true, and that's simply not how DNA works. You have two pieces of body parts that contain the same DNA. One from the plane, one from the car. Same person. Car is shown to belong to Al Qeada operative and has belongings to Al Qeada operative and evidence of the plans. I could go on, but it would just be the same post that you didn't seem to understand anyways.

Yes of course you wonder about the integrity of the DNA samples because they destroy your pre-determined conclusions, thus they must be discredited in any way possible in order for you to maintain your pre-determined conclusion. It's always a pain when the evidence gets in teh way of a witch hunt.

[Jonnyclueless]

The only way to know for sure is for the information to be released.

I'm looking for more circumstantial evidence to confirm that the FBI's list of 19 hijackers was accurate.

What you are doing is simply playing on the fact that it's impossible for documentaries to cover every single person and every single aspect of every single angle of the issue. So all you have to do is look for anything that isn't covered (since that will always be guaranteed) and then using it to pretend you are not convinced. All the while you have absolutely no evidence what so ever for any of the conspiracy theories. But if you can keep attention away from that fact and just concentrate on inevitable gaps, then you can feel better about not having a single shred of evidence to support your pre-determined conclusions.

Yes, I am not convinced of Gravity since I have found an unanswered question or because not every scientist int he world has provided me with every page of research. Unless I have that, I cannot conclude that gravity exists.

[chillzero]

The only way to know for sure is for the information to be released.

I'm looking for more circumstantial evidence to confirm that the FBI's list of 19 hijackers was accurate.

You are still avoiding my question.
Why look for circumstantial evidence, or in this case look to something that may not exist for perfectly valid reasons (even if you ignore the two you already accept), given the amount of hard evidence that has been presented?

It's like complaining that you can't trust a murder conviction despite videotape and eyewitness testimony showing the shooter take the shot as well as forensic evidence, because you can't find his footprints.

Ridiculous.

[thatsmystory]

You are still avoiding my question.
Why look for circumstantial evidence, or in this case look to something that may not exist for perfectly valid reasons (even if you ignore the two you already accept), given the amount of hard evidence that has been presented?

It's like complaining that you can't trust a murder conviction despite videotape and eyewitness testimony showing the shooter take the shot as well as forensic evidence, because you can't find his footprints.

Ridiculous.

To which hard evidence are you referring? Names on the manifest? No chance that any of the hijackers used a fake ID? And I should accept this because the FBI said so? I've already linked an article pointing out that Hanjour's name wasn't released right away. At first the released name was Mosear Caned. The released Dulles video shows a man who doesn't look like Hanjour.

[thatsmystory]

That's simply not true, and that's simply not how DNA works. You have two pieces of body parts that contain the same DNA. One from the plane, one from the car. Same person. Car is shown to belong to Al Qeada operative and has belongings to Al Qeada operative and evidence of the plans. I could go on, but it would just be the same post that you didn't seem to understand anyways.

Yes of course you wonder about the integrity of the DNA samples because they destroy your pre-determined conclusions, thus they must be discredited in any way possible in order for you to maintain your pre-determined conclusion. It's always a pain when the evidence gets in teh way of a witch hunt.
The FBI claimed they had the 10 DNA samples BEFORE Borakove's team matched two of them. There might have been five hair samples in the car. How would the FBI determine they had collected the hair sample of the hijacker?

[MikeW]

I've already linked an article pointing out that Hanjour's name wasn't released right away. At first the released name was Mosear Caned.
CNN said an unnamed source told them that, not quite the same thing as the FBI officially releasing it.

The released Dulles video shows a man who doesn't look like Hanjour.
Some newspaper reports incorrectly published pictures of a man who wasn't Hanjour. Other reports around the same time showed a man who looks very like him, as does the full video released at the Moussaoui trial (see here (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hani_Hanjour_at_Dulles)).

[twinstead]

The FBI claimed they had the 10 DNA samples BEFORE Borakove's team matched two of them. There might have been five hair samples in the car. How would the FBI determine they had collected the hair sample of the hijacker?

Yes. You simply MUST continue to question that pesky DNA evidence, don't you? The EXACT method that the hijackers were identified is available in the public domain for all to see. Find it yourself. The 911 investigation was the largest investigation in this country's history; I'm sure you and your fellow intrepid investigooglers didn't just stumble on something they must have not thought of, or worse managed to foil their nefarious plans.

You can doubt the DNA evidence and question it all you want, but until you bring forth some evidence the DNA was mishandled or that they were 'just guessing' and really hadn't identified anybody to your satisfaction you're just some guy on the internet asking questions.

[Totovader]

The FBI claimed they had the 10 DNA samples BEFORE Borakove's team matched two of them. There might have been five hair samples in the car. How would the FBI determine they had collected the hair sample of the hijacker?

What part don't you understand about DNA testing?

The FBI suspects these individuals were involved- and then works the case backwards. They collect samples from the known locations of the suspected hijackers, and then send those samples to the lab to confirm with the recovery team that the DNA existed at the crash sites- I'm pretty sure those samples are sent blind, as well; in other words, the labs don't know who they are looking for- only that sample A matched with recovered sample 1.

The chances of getting a false positive are so incredibly slim that I'm scratching my head as to how you are whining suspicion, here... there's nothing remotely suspicious about confirming someones identity with DNA.

Of course- experience tells me that die-hard conspiracists won't care about actual DNA confirmation, and will instead write it off as planted, faked, bought-off, or what-have-you just to ignore the facts.

I won't be holding my breath.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm just trying to imagine what life would be like if these twoofers were in charge of criminal investigations. Very scary.

[johnny karate]

What part don't you understand about DNA testing?

I'll go with "every conceivable aspect".

[thatsmystory]

What part don't you understand about DNA testing?

The FBI suspects these individuals were involved- and then works the case backwards. They collect samples from the known locations of the suspected hijackers, and then send those samples to the lab to confirm with the recovery team that the DNA existed at the crash sites- I'm pretty sure those samples are sent blind, as well; in other words, the labs don't know who they are looking for- only that sample A matched with recovered sample 1.

The chances of getting a false positive are so incredibly slim that I'm scratching my head as to how you are whining suspicion, here... there's nothing remotely suspicious about confirming someones identity with DNA.

Of course- experience tells me that die-hard conspiracists won't care about actual DNA confirmation, and will instead write it off as planted, faked, bought-off, or what-have-you just to ignore the facts.

I won't be holding my breath.
Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.
The FBI wouldn't know until the lab matched the samples that the DNA was that of a hijacker yet the article suggests the FBI knew their 10 samples were those of the hijackers.

I find it hard to understand how certain you are that the FBI could pinpoint the DNA samples of the hijackers. Did the FBI had some way of confirming the DNA match before the lab tried to match the samples with passenger DNA?

[twinstead]

The FBI wouldn't know until the lab matched the samples that the DNA was that of a hijacker yet the article suggests the FBI knew their 10 samples were those of the hijackers.

I find it hard to understand how certain you are that the FBI could pinpoint the DNA samples of the hijackers. Did the FBI had some way of confirming the DNA match before the lab tried to match the samples with passenger DNA?

Are you this suspect of ANY investigation where DNA evidence is gathered, or is this because of your...shall we say...ideological aversion to the official story of 911?

[thatsmystory]

Are you this suspect of ANY investigation where DNA evidence is gathered, or is this because of your...shall we say...ideological aversion to the official story of 911?
I could understand if the FBI collected about 20 or 30 samples and said we very strongly think the hijackers samples are included. But 10 samples identified as the hijackers seems too precise without some sort of process of making this determination.

For example, a hotel room in which they may have stayed for a night? I would think the FBI would have found several hair samples, only one of which might have been a hijacker's.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

For example, a hotel room in which they may have stayed for a night? I would think the FBI would have found several hair samples, only one of which might have been a hijacker's.


And if matching samples were found in a car they supposedly rented and at the crash scene? What then?

ETA: Hmm. I think I may have misunderstood the point of those sentences I quoted...

[Totovader]

I could understand if the FBI collected about 20 or 30 samples and said we very strongly think the hijackers samples are included. But 10 samples identified as the hijackers seems too precise without some sort of process of making this determination.

For example, a hotel room in which they may have stayed for a night? I would think the FBI would have found several hair samples, only one of which might have been a hijacker's.

Seems too precise? Based on what? What other investigations are you comparing this to?

Or are you capable of admitting that your fake-suspicion is really just a cover for your inability to believe in the facts?

Hint: there is a process for making this determination, it's called an investigation.

[Totovader]

The FBI wouldn't know until the lab matched the samples that the DNA was that of a hijacker yet the article suggests the FBI knew their 10 samples were those of the hijackers.

I find it hard to understand how certain you are that the FBI could pinpoint the DNA samples of the hijackers. Did the FBI had some way of confirming the DNA match before the lab tried to match the samples with passenger DNA?

Your lack of understanding is not evidence. Your inability to accept facts which so easily demolish your precious fantasy does not simply make them go away.

You're trying to claim that the FBI knew of a DNA match prior to sending the samples to the lab- but you're intentionally obfuscating the facts.

If I suspected you were involved in a crime and wanted to compare your DNA to that found at the crime scene, but had no idea which blood spots were yours and that of the victim- a DNA sample would be taken from you and then matched to the samples at the crime scene.

The FBI gathered samples of the suspects DNA, sent it to the lab, and the lab confirmed that the matching DNA was found at the crash sites. What part of this are you incapable of understanding? You don't start out with a match and then go roaming the Earth looking for the culprit. If you think that your DNA literally has your name written on it somehow, then you're very much wrong.

[thatsmystory]

Your lack of understanding is not evidence. Your inability to accept facts which so easily demolish your precious fantasy does not simply make them go away.

You're trying to claim that the FBI knew of a DNA match prior to sending the samples to the lab- but you're intentionally obfuscating the facts.

If I suspected you were involved in a crime and wanted to compare your DNA to that found at the crime scene, but had no idea which blood spots were yours and that of the victim- a DNA sample would be taken from you and then matched to the samples at the crime scene.

The FBI gathered samples of the suspects DNA, sent it to the lab, and the lab confirmed that the matching DNA was found at the crash sites. What part of this are you incapable of understanding? You don't start out with a match and then go roaming the Earth looking for the culprit. If you think that your DNA literally has your name written on it somehow, then you're very much wrong.
I'm just reading the article. Maybe the article is misleading:

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.

"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said.

The sequence is:

1) FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers.

2) Borakove matched two of the DNA profiles to passengers on the planes.

How did the FBI pull off this amazing detective work, narrowing down the DNA samples to the 10 hijackers?

Again, are you suggesting the article is wrong? For all I know it may be.

[Jonnyclueless]

You're going to have to start providing a source for this claim about the FBI profiles you're talking about.

[WildCat]

To which hard evidence are you referring? Names on the manifest? No chance that any of the hijackers used a fake ID? And I should accept this because the FBI said so? I've already linked an article pointing out that Hanjour's name wasn't released right away. At first the released name was Mosear Caned. The released Dulles video shows a man who doesn't look like Hanjour.
So the suicide hijackers used fake names, then the government disappeared the real guys whose identities they stole?

This is the problem with truther theories - they are so ridiculously complex and nonsensical.

[Totovader]

I'm just reading the article. Maybe the article is misleading:



The sequence is:

1) FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers.

2) Borakove matched two of the DNA profiles to passengers on the planes.

How did the FBI pull off this amazing detective work, narrowing down the DNA samples to the 10 hijackers?

Again, are you suggesting the article is wrong? For all I know it may be.

No, it's just you. The FBI is not the one that narrowed the collected samples from the crash sites down to the 10 hijackers, the FBI is the one that went out and collected the samples for comparison to those collected at the crash sites. Those samples matched. Again, you're either being intentionally obtuse, or you need to read more carefully.

[Arus808]

Um, process of elimination? the FBI identified ALL The other DNA samples taken (as they'd be much faster get samples to match to since loved ones WOULD like to have somehting to bury) and isolated 10 SAMPLES that they could not MATCH to.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Its not like on 9/11/2001 they collect the samples and on 9/12/2001 they identified the 10 dna samples as being the hijackers.

[thatsmystory]

So the suicide hijackers used fake names, then the government disappeared the real guys whose identities they stole?

This is the problem with truther theories - they are so ridiculously complex and nonsensical.
You make a good point.

Maybe some of the hijackers had second thoughts and backed out. I'm not saying it happened just that it is a speculative answer to your question. If the original plan called for a LIHOP scenario then the refusal of some hijackers to follow through would have created problems.

[thatsmystory]

No, it's just you. The FBI is not the one that narrowed the collected samples from the crash sites down to the 10 hijackers, the FBI is the one that went out and collected the samples for comparison to those collected at the crash sites. Those samples matched. Again, you're either being intentionally obtuse, or you need to read more carefully.
As I understand the process, the FBI collected each DNA sample with a good idea but not 100% assurance that the DNA sample collected was that of a hijacker. Only AFTER the lab matched the sample to a DNA sample of a passenger would the FBI know their sample was indeed a hijacker. How could they know BEFORE the lab made a match (ie...steering wheel DNA to passenger DNA)? Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, DNA doesn't have a name attached. AFAIK, the FBI didn't get DNA samples from the hijackers' families in order to test their DNA samples. How would they know one of their samples wasn't that of Bob Smith who stayed in the same hotel room the week before Wail al-Shehri?

[Dave Rogers]

How did the FBI pull off this amazing detective work, narrowing down the DNA samples to the 10 hijackers?

You do realise, don't you, that the FBI has some experience in detective work? Some might say it's one of their core competences.

Let's hypothesise for a minute. Suppose you're an FBI investigator, and you want to find DNA samples from ten individuals who were known to have occupied certain motel rooms and driven certain cars. How would you go about it? First of all, you could collect samples from the rooms and cars, and find as many DNA traces as possible. Then you could check the motel registers and find out all the other recent occupants of those rooms, and get comparison samples off them. You could check with them whether anyone else was in the rooms with them. You could interview the staff of the motel and find out whether your suspects had any visitors, and if so try and trace them. Same with the car rental firms. Remember that you have two things going for you: first, your budget is essentially unlimited, and secondly, you just have to hint that you're investigating the 9/11 attacks and you'll immediately get 110% co-operation from an outraged citizenry. With some careful investigation and detective work, there is a very good chance that you'll be able to identify ten, and only ten, possible DNA traces. It's not rocket science, just simple, old-fashioned police work: eliminate all the false traces, patiently and thoroughly, and what you're left with is the set you want.

Again, are you suggesting the article is wrong? For all I know it may be.

It's a BBC news report. It's almost certainly simplified. For example, no reporter would feel comfortable with saying "The FBI provided us with a set of ten DNA profiles which they said were concluded to be those of the hijackers with a 90% confidence level" when they can say "The FBI provided us with the DNA profiles of the ten hijackers". It's a simpler, clearer and punchier sentence that won't lose the reader's attention. Trying to discern reliable information about the internal processes of the FBI from the specific word choices of a BBC reporter is a futile exercise.

Dave

[Totovader]

As I understand the process, the FBI collected each DNA sample with a good idea but not 100% assurance that the DNA sample collected was that of a hijacker. Only AFTER the lab matched the sample to a DNA sample of a passenger would the FBI know their sample was indeed a hijacker. How could they know BEFORE the lab made a match (ie...steering wheel DNA to passenger DNA)? Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, DNA doesn't have a name attached. AFAIK, the FBI didn't get DNA samples from the hijackers' families in order to test their DNA samples. How would they know one of their samples wasn't that of Bob Smith who stayed in the same hotel room the week before Wail al-Shehri?

They didn't know- and I don't see anything that says that they did know. The fact of the matter is- that of the samples they collected- some matched. I still don't know what case you're comparing this to in order to arrive at the conclusion that this is somehow suspicious. You never answered that question.

I could be wrong, but I believe the FBI did get samples from a couple of the families- I know that the lab at least noticed that the brothers existed at the crash site.

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again, please show you source for this claim that the FBI claimed to make identification of hijackers via DNA before the DNA results were in.

[xinit]

Once again, please show you source for this claim that the FBI claimed to make identification of hijackers via DNA before the DNA results were in.

Come on... the FBI have been using forensic psychics for decades now...

:D

[Foolmewunz]

So, from this meandering thread I seem to have learned:

1. Bad FBI, 911 Commission, and NIST! Did not get every perception of every boarding agent and member of the gate crews.
BTW, did it occur to you that we have ALL OF THEM... everything that anyone remembered that was even noteworthy has been recorded, and the others, being human, could honestly say that they really had no recollection of anything that struck them as being out of place.
> We'd rather trust the impression of a gate agent that you're merely speculating exists in secret somewhere, than the evidence gathered by FBI forensics teams.
Hmm? Let's see?
Gate Agents: "Attend to boarding cards and loading of passengers. Check tickets. Count heads."
FBI: "Investigate serious crimes. Catch bad guys."

Now the TM already ignores anything presented by the gubmint in the way of factual evidence as being falsified, planted, or made up. So they'd naturally rather have some video of something a gate agent says. Why does this not surprise me?