Do you believe America has gotten even for 9/11?

[eots]

how did they know who they were.. what cars they rented....isolate their microscopic dna from all the other hotel patrons and drivers of rental cars ?? then isolate it from thousands of other victims.. all within days of the attack..


//, I must make a statement or disclaimer. I do not believe everyone within the walls of the FBI are bad people and I do not believe they were all involved in a conspiracy. However, I do believe there are people within the FBI that not only allowed the attacks to take place, but were a crucial part of the cover – up of the actual events; before, during, and after. I would also like to say that I do not believe the NYC’s Chief Medical Examiner’s Office (OCME) or its Forensic Biology Department were involved in any conspiracy to cover – up a crime, however, I do believe they are guilty of negligence. Whether this was because they handled evidence that was believed to be that of the terrorists differently or for some other reason, I do believe they were unknowingly complicit in the misinformation that was manufactured and disseminated to the public.

In this article we will look at DNA technology and identification, evidence protocol, terminology and public statements by both the FBI and the NYC Medical Examiner’s Office (OCME). In doing so I will show how the only known scientific evidence connecting any of the alleged hijackers to the attacks of Sept. 11th in NYC would be inadmissible in any US court of law and therefore should be pulled from any public record of the attacks. Additionally, the American people should be told the truth about the evidence and its handling in a clear manner so that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt, what they have been told is quite possibly and most probably untrue.
Evidence Room: Hijacker’s DNA, FBI Fingerprints | 911Blogger.com

 

[Zoom-boing]

Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified


Most recovered remains have yet to be identified
Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

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. BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified

I read this as the FBI collected the DNA from places where the hijackers had been (steering wheels on cars, hair samples from their hotel rooms) and compared these samples to what they found in the debris. It says that the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers. I took this to mean they had info on the hijackers, likely detailed information. Again this is just how I read it.

They knew who these people were because they had information on them. They were persons of interest, even before 9/11. Sorry, I'm confused about your post . . .

Passport of suspected hijacker found in debris
Tests show Wall Street ready for business Monday

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK -- The passport of a suspected hijacker was discovered near the ruins of the World Trade Center, authorities said Saturday as exhausted rescue workers clawed through the wreckage, searching unsuccessfully for signs of life.

FBI Assistant Director Barry Mawn did not disclose the name on the passport or other details, but the discovery prompted an intensive search for evidence blocks from the towers that were brought down in Tuesday's terrorist attacks by two hijacked planes
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: NEWS: Passport of suspected hijacker found in debris

isn't it amazing how a cop found the hijackers passports on the very day of 911 undamaged not even chard at all by the fires in all those masses of ruble...god if you didn't know better you would have to think they where planted there..wouldn't you ?

I didn't see in the article that the passports were found undamaged and uncharred.

 

[Article 15]

you can read as well as I can,, where in Edicts post did he/she advocate doing "something" I read the absence of "something" as "nothing"

Sorry, I had to take my sister to the hospital.

Editec criticized the US's overreaction to 9/11 which implies that he believes there should have been a reaction.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

[WillowTree]

Sorry, I had to take my sister to the hospital.

Editec criticized the US's overreaction to 9/11 which implies that he believes there should have been a reaction.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

and so my question was,,, would you do something or nothing??? so far I've heard nothing..

 

[Article 15]

and so my question was,,, would you do something or nothing??? so far I've heard nothing..

I sure would.

Here's what I wouldn't have done:

Iraq

GITMO

Some of the Patriot Act

Look, 9/11 obviously deserved a reaction. But as many posters have pointed out already our overreaction has worked to our detriment and was precisely what OBL wanted.

 

[DiveCon]

I sure would.

Here's what I wouldn't have done:

Iraq

GITMO

Some of the Patriot Act

Look, 9/11 obviously deserved a reaction. But as many posters have pointed out already our overreaction has worked to our detriment and was precisely what OBL wanted.

Iraq should have been done 12 years earlier, so it just means it was delayed
they had to have some place to put prisoners, gitmo was the best place
yeah, most of the PA was kneejerk reactions, and were supported by both parties, till it became political

 

[Article 15]

Iraq should have been done 12 years earlier, so it just means it was delayed
they had to have some place to put prisoners, gitmo was the best place
yeah, most of the PA was kneejerk reactions, and were supported by both parties, till it became political

Iraq was a massive mistake just like it would have been 12 earlier (like Cheney said).

And GITMO is an embarrassment.

 

[DiveCon]

Iraq was a massive mistake just like it would have been 12 earlier (like Cheney said).

And GITMO is an embarrassment.

i disagree on BOTH counts

 

[Article 15]

i disagree on BOTH counts

I know you do

 

[Caligirl]

what cockpit ??? are you trying to tell me there was a cockpit recovered with body's ??? this never happened ..do you have a link to this ??
and are you really this stupid.. identifying geographic origin and saying the the hijackers where identified through there dna are two very different things..to identify them through there dna a prior sample is requires ,,pretty basic stuff ...where did that sample come from is the question..

The cockpit of the plane, silly.

When a plane crashes, the bits of the plane land on the ground. Wings, fuselage, fuel tanks, etc - you can still identify it.

Bodies don't vaporize. Bones in particular don't. Not from a crash.

The remains of everyone on board the aircraft were later identified.

United Airlines Flight 93 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Caligirl]

ya.. as I thought ...no answer right ...same as the government ..no logical answer to this reasonable question...

The fact that I have been busy for the past few hours and have not logged on, that you didn't bother to check my logon history to see if I even was around to respond, and yet you conclude that I am avoiding your questionis more a reflection on your determination to hold to a silly theory than that you are approaching this with any logic or reason.

Note: I don't spend all of my time here, just more than I should.

 

[Caligirl]

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.

Well there you have it. They matched the DNA to samples from hotel rooms, and got the identification that way.

 

[Caligirl]

Iraq should have been done 12 years earlier, so it just means it was delayed
they had to have some place to put prisoners, gitmo was the best place
yeah, most of the PA was kneejerk reactions, and were supported by both parties, till it became political

Bush 1 didn't do it 12 years earlier because:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under these circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations's mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. "

-GHW Bush

 

[José]

Originally posted by editec
You want to know the two biggest things which I think really retard the Arab culture today?

The fact that they hate Jews (who bring good things to every culture they are welcomed in);

If you go back into the history of the WESTERN culture, it looks remarkably like the Islamic culture does now.

It hated Jews

Originally posted by tigerbob
Some really interesting parallels there. I'd rep you but I already did. Nice one.

Indeed…

Westerners used to hate jews…

Now they were brainwashed into believing the fairy tale that describes a state racist to the bone, that keeps its undesirable native population herded into walled enclaves while portraying itself, for foreign consumption, as a “benign”, besieged little country facing an existential threat imposed by hordes of irrational arabs who hate them because of their ethnicity.

You and the English guy are prime examples of this kind of brainwashed westerner.

 

[tigerbob]

Indeed…

Westerners used to hate jews…

Now they were brainwashed into believing the fairy tale that describes a state racist to the bone, that keeps its undesirable native population herded into walled enclaves while portraying itself, for foreign consumption, as a “benign”, besieged little country facing an existential threat imposed by hordes of irrational arabs who hate them because of their ethnicity.

You and the English guy are prime examples of this kind of brainwashed westerner.

 

[AmericaFirst]

I know this is a yes or no question, but I want to know why you think the way you do.

No - There has not been one single US prosecution in America for this crime.

All the law suites related to the cases involving the victims family's have all been settled out of court. Not a single case has gone to trial.

Over a million innocent Iraqi and Afghan people have been murdered that had ZERO to do with the crime.

Over 4000 more Americans died in this additional "War on Terror" war crime

The list goes on and on

 

[jgbkab]

Allah damned right we did.



You say that as though you think: "They hate us for our freedoms" isn't explanation enough.

I'm shocked, Sunni. Shocked do you hear me?



In six words or less? Any more than that might confuse this reading public.


So it's Pretty damned hard to explain why they hate us for our freedoms when I have to start the explanation back when Churchill decided that the Royal British Navy MUST migrate from coal powered ships to oil powered ships.

And then how many thousand words do I have to expend explaining the outcome of the fall of the Ottoman enpire and the BETRAYAL of the Arab people by the Europeans?

And how many million words do I have to explain to people that the world of Islam is NOT a monolith and that much of what they percieve as a terrorist war on America is really an ongoing war on the current poltical structure of the existing governments in the Islamic world?

And there are simply NOT ENOUGH WORDS to try to unravel the further complications that the existence of Israel adds to this mess.

Let's just stick with the reason they blew down WTC is because those nasty terrorists are jealous of our freedoms, shall I?

It satisfies the stupid, and anyone who could understand whatever I wrote about the real reasons probably already knows those reasons as well as I do.

Someone on this board ACTUALLY has a clue? Say it ain't so...it all started back with the Brits!

 

[eots]

Bin laden shot Kennedy didn't he ?

no but the creators of all- CIA- duh surly had a hand it in it

 

[sealybobo]

I know this is a yes or no question, but I want to know why you think the way you do.

Are you kidding? Just look at everything that happened since 9-11.

The GOP loves to say, "terrorists hate our freedoms".

Well if that is true, then they must have loved the last 8 years. Taking habius corpus away from us, spying on us, America looks bad now because we tortured.....

Bin Ladin made the GOP look like fools!!!

And Bush let him get away. Left one side of the Tora Bora mountains open so Bin Ladin could get away. That's because the Saudi's told him to do that.

Think about all the innocent people we tortured since 9-11. Yet on 9-12 we flew every Bin Ladin out of the USA first class, without even questioning them? And it turns out they were funding the hijackers!!!!

What a bunch of pussies the GOP are!!!!

And so much for the "liberal" media. They totally helped Bush by burying their heads in the sand the last 8 years.

And since it was done on purpose, they are all traitors too. Unless you can explain how Bush's plans for the middle east are in America's best interest.

That seems to be the argument. Even though Bush lied us into war in Iraq, it was for our own good. And seeing as how we know he lied about WMD's, why is it so unbelievable to believe he lied about other things? For example, we know they lied about knowledge of 9-11. So why is it so hard to believe they let it happen so they could start a war in Iraq?

Also, don't forget Chaney actually had the balls to try to start another war in iran too. WTF????

Just read PNAC. They needed another Pearl Harbor in order to push their agenda.

Be careful what you wish for......

 

[Gurdari]

I know this is a yes or no question, but I want to know why you think the way you do.

Has there ever been a serious discussion about the reasons. causes, context of that attack?
And the same criteria examined in other attacks?

i.e. determining when force is appropriate, how much, who is targeted, etc. and what standards of behavior are acceptable. If there is no framework, then it ends up being violence without any right or wrong attached to it.