Why on earth can't we even agree on that??

[Andre II]

as it should be widely known none of the alleged hijackers of UA 93 and AA 77 have been positively identified.
Only three of AA 11 and UA 174 had their DNA matched but not even the person being in charge of the macthing of the DNA knew the names.
In case of AA 77 and UA 93 the FBI didn't send DNA samples to the INstitute although they had samples.
The FBI didn't accept the offer of Jarrah's family to provide DNA samples.
All these are facts.
You can find them here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x74993

If you need more facts let me know.

Now, what really shocks me is that in the linked thread I asked literally twenty times
if the other poster couldn't agree that it is substantial and crucial in a criminal investigation to
have the culprits positively identified.
No, I'm not claiming the absence of any positive identification is a smoking gun.
It is simply part of a criminal investigation.
And asking for it should be demanded by common sense.
yet, not a single OCTer managed to agree on the need for a positive identification
but prefered to point out to all the circumstantial evidence that might exist.
Of course avoiding to realize that ircumstantial evidence can NEVER be a substitute for a positive identification.
What's the problem here?
Why is it so hard to agree on that?

[2rth2pwr]

1. Were all the passengers identified with DNA testing? If not, what are they hiding?

[SDuderstadt]

4. This assumes if all the passengers could not be identified...

they are automatically "hiding" something. In actuality, the forensic identification was fairly remarkable. One could, of course, make the argument that, "well, DNA testing was utilized to make sure that Koresh did not survive Waco", however, Waco was far more survivable than the crashes on 9/11 and it's more than reasonable to assume no one survived them. There is overwheming evidence of the identity of the hijackers from a variety of sources. I suspect the real intent here in that you guys believe it was someone else or remote-controlled planes or whatever. More reasonable people look at the available evidence and draw appropriate conclusions. I hardly think one of our priorities should be to provide the hijackers' remains to their families out of concern for their peace of mind. It's a really silly contention.

[2rth2pwr]

5. Isn't it possible that even if they were able to get exact DNA matches

that it could have come from clones?

[Andre II]

6. Can we please be serious? n/t

[Andre II]

7. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again

how often do you want to avoid to answer the central question of this thread?
I don't know how often I've asked you already in the other DNA thread and you always managed to chicken out.
So, once again.
Why are you not in favour of positively identifying the alleged hijackers?

And if we're on to it you refused to answer several times now why the offer of Jarrah's family to present DNA samples wasn't accepted by the FBI.

And what's about your exciting bet you've proposed me?

Why am I still waiting your proclaimed other evidence that positively identified the alleged hijackers?

[mhatrw]

2. It's the same on most of the other threads as well.

They won't agree that the warning the Odigo employees got just hours before 9/11 is worth investigating.

Nor will they agree that Mineta's on the record testimony to the 9/11 Commission leaves questions that can only be satisfactorily answered by the release of the primary evidence that supposedly contradicts Mineta's testimony.

Assuming these individual are discussing these topics in good faith, these actions simply doesn't make any sense.

[SDuderstadt]

3. This is bullshit, mhatrw....

no one ever claimed it wasn't worth investigating. The story itself says that the FBI DID investigate it. It's NOT a new lead. The question is whether or not the FBI investigated it fully and what resulted from the investigation. You don't know. Neither do I. The problem is you have no evidenc that it was not investigated fully and seem to think it's more effective to belabor the point here rather than simply asking the FREAKIN' FBI. Quit mischaracterizing our position. I've said repeatedly that I don't think anything will be found based SOLELY on the information that we have. That hardly makes me an enemy of the state or our republic. Sheesh.

Above and beyond that, one doesn't have to see all the "primary evidence" in the Mineta matter to figue it out. The only issue appears to be what time Mineta believes Cheney was in the PEOC. Beyond that Mineta has testified he believed that Cheney issued a shoot-down order. Mineta has already publicaly admitted he could be wrong about his recollection of the time. using Mineta's own testimony and other available information, it's relatively easy to see that the most likely explanation is that Mineta is confused about the time. If you have some sort of evidenc that the SS is "in on it", I suggest you provide it. Otherwise, this is like Tom Cruise's character in "Rainman" trying to explain to his autistic savant brother that "who's on first" isn't a riddle.

[Andre II]

8. Ain't it amazing

that within a month not a single person who defends the official story could bring himself to admit simply that it would be in the interest of the truth if indeed the alleged hijackers would have been positively identified.
To ask for a standard procedure that common sense asks for must be really such a wild and extremist position.....
Oh, btw, SDuderstadt, I'm still waiting for your examples of other positive identification of the alleged hijackers. Didn't you talk about a bet ..........

[Bassman66]

9. I totally agree...

"...it would be in the interest of the truth if indeed the alleged hijackers would have been positively identified."

Of course it would be in the interest of truth, how could anyone disagree?

I'm constantly amazed at the effort people make to justify leaving some big stones unturned.

[LARED]

10. Maybe so called oct'er have enough brainpower to

understand that obtaining a positive identification that meets your standard of a criminal investigation would be very difficult, possibly impossible, and basically pointless.

We have documentation of who bought the tickets, manifests of who boarded the plane, so we know who they claimed to be, and we are pretty certain they or at least some used false ID's. We know whomever entered the planes are dead. I agree in the interest of knowing all the facts it would be nice to have a positive identification. But I'm not losing any sleep over this issue, nor do I think spending the effort to complete this task to your standard is worthwhile.

[Andre II]

11. Brainpower

"obtaining a positive identification that meets your standard of a criminal investigation would be very difficult, possibly impossible, and basically pointless."

Interesting comment.
Care to explain what would be so difficult about releasing the names of the three DNA samples that were matched at the WTC?
Care what's so difficult to send DNA samples of the alleged hijackers of AA 77 and UA 93 so they can be matched?
LARED, what's so difficult about it?
And what the heck is so special about my standards if I ask for a positive identification??

"we are pretty certain they or at least some used false ID's."

Who?
And what were the real names of them?

[Bassman66]

12. Stones left unturned, but why?

Your requests are simple enough, the puzzle is why people are so against it.

[LARED]

13. What constitutes a positive identification? nt

[Bassman66]

14. Did you miss the DNA part and the avoidance of DNA matching? nt

[Andre II]

15. ?

:eyes:
are you serious?
I think I've written this hundreth of times in the last months now.
Matching DNA constitutes a positive identification.