DNA of One 9/11 Hijacker Positively Identified

A new document obtained from the 9/11 Commission’s files shows that the DNA of one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, presumed Flight 93 pilot Ziad Jarrah, was positively identified. A sample taken from the plane’s crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was matched with a sample taken by German authorities from the residence of his girlfriend. The document was found at the National Archives by History Commons contributor paxvector, and posted at the History Commons site at Scribd.

DNA samples of fourteen of the nineteen hijackers were reportedly found at the three crash sites after the attacks. However, it was previously thought that the DNA samples were only identified by a process of elimination–if a DNA sample at a crash site did not match that of a victim it was presumed to be from a hijacker. In addition, the FBI took DNA samples from places–such as hotel rooms–it thought the hijackers had been and matched them with the non-victim samples from the crash sites.

The document that discloses Jarrah’s positive identification is entitled “How FBI Determined the 19 Hijackers’s Identities” and is undated, although it presumably comes from 2003 or the first half of 2004. It was drafted in response to an inquiry by commission staffer Thomas Eldridge.

The section about the identification of Jarrah’s DNA reads:

"The Budeskriminalamt (BKA – German Federal police) provided DNA profiles obtained from search warrants conducted on Ziad Jarrah’s girlfriend (Aysel Sengun) residence. The FBI Laboratory compared the DNA profiles provided by the BKA, with DNA profiles from the four sets of unknown human remains recovered at the crash site of UAL Flight 93.

"The DNA profiles provided by the BKA matched the sample of one of the sets of unknown human remains, (ACS 315N-NY-280350-OUT, Serial 4417.)"

The document makes it clear that the relatives of the other eighteen alleged hijackers did not provide samples for comparison. However, it is still unclear why this was not done. There has been some media speculation that it was to spare the sensitivities of oil-rich Saudi Arabia, which provided fifteen of the alleged nineteen.

Reposted from here.


I was wrong about this 9/11 inside job stuff. I quit ;-)

Same With Me...

The fabricated DNA overturns the 9,999 other pieces of evidence.

The document says the FBI

According to the document, the FBI says Jarrah's DNA was matched, but it's not a lab report, which presumably exists, phony or not- unless someone just hung their ass out and lied on this document.

It is the FBI on a documentary record stating this is a fact; it may be true, it may be not, but it's a fact the document exists; a real investigation or truth and reconciliation commission can use stuff like this to put pressure on people involved with the previous investigations/cover ups to get at the whole truth.

The alleged hijackers/probable patsies may well have been on board the flights; just not in control, and not even aware, or all aware, they were part of a suicide mission. Again, real investigations would have dug to the bottom of the whole stinking pile. Real investigations would've begun with the White House, NSA, CIA, FBI and DOD, for not hardening security despite numerous warnings, for not shutting down the plot even though they were monitoring some of the alleged operatives, for letting off course and known hijacked planes fly around the US unintercepted and crashing into buildings, for covering up afterwards, etc. And the truth definitely needs to be told about who rigged the WTC towers for destruction.

Good work Kevin, digging this detail out.


Well said

For truthers to deny the existance of hijackers seems to me
to be the same as saying "Oswald couldn't have killed kennedy...
He didn't exist." Not a good move. Plus it takes away from important evidence like......

"We told the Americans about the plans to turn planes into flying bombs as far back as 1995," he complained to reporters. "Why didn't they pay attention?"

"A former landlord of two of the September 11 hijackers was an FBI informant at the time, knowledgeable sources confirm to CNN."

"The Administration also would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant."

"In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset."

Straw man

It's not about whether or not Jarrah exists, the truth movement doesn't make such claims. What matters is if the debris is really from UA 93, and if Jarrah was aboard. In lieu of the numerous pieces of evidence which were very likely manufactured, this is normal. We even torture to manufacture evidence.

some do claim

some do claim there's no evidence the alleged hijackers can be tied to the plot, some claim they were not aboard the flights. One thing I know for sure, is that much evidence is still suppressed- 2/3 of the 9/11 Commission records haven't been made public, and thousands of pages have been withdrawn from what has been made public.

Sometimes evidence is manufactured or produced by torture- but not all of it. Some of it is planted by agents, some created by patsies who leave a trail, unaware they're being used, and some is left by double agents leaving a trail "for the FBI to chase". Some of it points to parties other than Bin Laden and "al Qaeda", and that's what cover ups, disinformation and media spin are for.

I do my best to focus on people's evidence and arguments, from those who claim to be part of a "9/11 Truth Movement", as well as from those who are part of the govt- I'm not questioning your intentions, SnowCrash, but I wouldn't call jimd3100's statement a "straw man".

A full investigation is in order. Persons of interest and whistleblowers need to testify in public, under oath, and evidence and lines of questioning censored by the Zelikow Commission need to be pursued where they lead. jimd3100 made an appropriate analogy about Oswald, and posted a few of the things that a real investigation would address. LIHOP or MIHOP, it's treason and mass murder.

Let's have a full investigation- there's no reason to believe anything the govt has said about 9/11- what has been said in many places contradicts their own statements and official conclusions, as well as the factual and historical record. They need to come clean, if they expect the public to have confidence, if they want to be perceived as legitimate custodians of the public's trust, and be our representatives and public servants who swear an Oath to defend the Constitution. The younger generations are far less likely to believe the OCT, despite the massive MSM propaganda campaign, the mass brainwashing and the history books written for them that tell the bogus tale that Al Qaeda alone did 9/11



I find it more likely that Jarrah was on board than not. In the course of my research, I've just decided to be extremely skeptical.

The reason I referred to the comment as a "straw man" is because of this paragraph:

"For truthers to deny the existance of hijackers seems to me
to be the same as saying "Oswald couldn't have killed kennedy...
He didn't exist."

I find the statement that "truthers deny the existance of hijackers" or "didn't exist" to be a hyperbolic misrepresentation:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

No love lost. We're all fighting for truth.

straw man in other words

straw man; claiming someone made an argument they did not make- a rhetorical trick used by disingenuous or confused debaters, who will then proceed to "debunk" the argument that wasn't made. Will sometimes fool audiences into thinking an argument was won by a debater, when they didn't actually argue what the argument was about.

I didn't interpret your statement to mean that you believed there were no hijackers on board, and you've clarified that you don't make that claim, but remain skeptical and seek solid evidence- that's healthy.

Perhaps jimd3100 interpreted your statement to mean that; there are some who say that.

no love lost, but I don't know who's fighting for truth and who isn't- lots of bogus claims are being made about 9/11, and while I assume many are made innocently, by well-intentioned people who are mistaken and will correct themselves at some point, some may be made by people who may not care if they're mistaken because they're attached to their belief for whatever reason, and others may be made by people seeking to confuse truth activists and disrupt the movement. This is why it helps to debate evidence and arguments, while taking note of people's behavior, as it can be difficult to determine/prove intentions. Even people who attack and express anger may be emotionally unbalanced or having bad digestion; but using ad hom is a known disruptive tactic- and it's known that it's known, so those who seek to disrupt will adapt, and not use it.

Misinfo and weak arguments have the same effect as disinfo and dishonest arguments; they discredit the people using them, and the truth movement by association. The "debunker" sites make great use of these things- one that I won't dignify by naming constantly crawls this site looking for material to mock "truthers" with.

Arabesque, who some accuse of being a "CIA agent" and "COINTELPRO", has written a number of useful articles on these things as they relate to the 9/11 truth movement:

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Masterlist