10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Chris:
What's an "official proceeding" in the context of the NY state penal law that you posted? How would that apply to how your claiming that the steel was removed illegally?

An investigation into how these buildings collapsed was essential to prevent anything like that from happening again.
An official investigation was launched and therefore, the destruction of the physical evidence was a felony under NY state law.

 

[DGM]

An investigation into how these buildings collapsed was essential to prevent anything like that from happening again.
An official investigation was launched and therefore, the destruction of the physical evidence was a felony under NY state law.

THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. How does a penal code apply?

Why don't you trot over to NY state and show just cause to the DA. Then maybe you would have a leg to stand on.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris:
What criminal investigation was the steel (the steel itself) involved in? Could you state the case please.

See post . . . . . i'll post it again:

The law does not say that there had to be a crime, only that:

"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

 

[DGM]

See post . . . . . i'll post it again:

The law does not say that there had to be a crime, only that:

"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

Chris:
So by your reasoning it's a felony to throw anything away in the state of NY. The "penal code" covers actions involving the state. Do you see the state of NY complaining about this? They're the ones that have to follow up on this. All you got to do is convince them then your in (just cause). Go for it.

 

[funk de fino]

NIST obviously had access or they would not have been able to say it could not be unambiguously identified as coming from WTC 7.

The original point here is

You lied or were mistaken when you said they had no steel from WTC7 cause it had been destroyed.

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.

Prove it

Don't be evasive, i've posted many links.
From what source did that quote come from?
I would like to know, who was this outside contractor that made an independent study and what specifically did he verify?

Your own link to the NIST Executive study. Try reading them first. Not very clever looking now are you?

The law does not say that there had to be a crime, only that:
"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

So, they took it away, it was inspected and then it was destroyed. Who gave the orders for this to be done?

An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

What type of proceeding?

The FBI does not need to sign off on a violation of state law.
The FBI investigates federal crimes. I don't know the federal statute that would apply here so i don't know if they would have to sign off.

Who was in charge of the federal investigation? Were the investigations carried out under state law?

Once again, the point here is:

You cannot prove it was illegal to move and destroy the steel and you cannot even say when it was all destroyed.

(a) "Official proceeding" means a proceeding heard before a legislative, judicial, administrative, or other governmental agency or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including a referee, prosecuting attorney, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or deposition in that proceeding.

 

[funk de fino]

Post # 4477 Chris

retract your schoolboy error please

(or admit you lied)

 

[jaydeehess]

An investigation into how these buildings collapsed was essential to prevent anything like that from happening again.
An official investigation was launched and therefore, the destruction of the physical evidence was a felony under NY state law.

Ok, so you say its not a Federal responsibility even though the case involves aircraft hijacking. Fine, then one must also note that no law enforcement or justice agency anywhere in the USA has brought forth a case against anyone involved in the supposedly illegal act of removing the WTC 7 steel.

Further to that no citizen has brought forth a complaint about this supposed egregious act. Instead, in similar fashion to the actions of the so-called CIT and their contentions of evidence tampering, this gets argued about on internet forums.

As laughable as it was, even Morgan Reynolds asked for and got, his day in court re: planted evidence of planes into the towers.

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by C7
The debris damage was not a significant factor in the initiating event.

This is what NIST say about what happened that day in the latest release.
Originally Posted by NIST, Dec 18, 2007
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Come on Chris, I really do not believe you have made the same mistake again so you must be deliberately misleading or lying?

Wrong again.

There was NO debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 or 81]

They are talking about debris [floors] falling as a result of fires.

The core columns were 2 stories high with splices 3' above the odd numbered floors.
Several floors would have to collapse around a column before it would fail.

 

[Christopher7]

Ok, so you say its not a Federal responsibility even though the case involves aircraft hijacking.

Wrong, i said:
"I don't know the federal statute that would apply here so i don't know if they [FBI] would have to sign off."

 

[Christopher7]

Rember, the POINT here is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

The 2 pieces that FEMA found were not enough to determine anything about a collapse due to DD/F.
NIST said they could not be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7 anyway.

 

[DGM]

Rember, the POINT here is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

The 2 pieces that FEMA found were not enough to determine anything about a collapse due to DD/F.
NIST said they could not be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7 anyway.

I take it you are dropping the felony charges?

 

[Christopher7]

I take it you are dropping the felony charges?

No, but that is another issue.
I sited the law:
"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

The removal and destruction of the physical evidence was a felony IMO.
If you disagree, then so be it.

Rember, the POINT here is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

 

[Christopher7]

This puts both theories on how WTC 7 collapsed on an equal footing.

The ONLY evidence to support either theory is:
the pictures, videos and witness statements.

 

[LashL]

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

Wrong.

The question was:


There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

You cannot admit, nor can you deny, that the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed, so you . .
. . subject shift, . .
. . subject shift, . .
. . subject shift.

Wrong.

No, i am saying there is no physical evidence of CD or anything else because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.

Wrong.

No
They did not find any pieces that could be positively identified as being from WTC 7 because the steel from WTC 7 was illegally removed from the site an mixed with the steel from the Trade Towers.

Wrong.

Here's the law again:
New York Penal Law Section 215.40 - Tampering With Physical Evidence.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...40_215.40.html

§ 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence. A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.


An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

The original point here is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.

Wrong.

An investigation into how these buildings collapsed was essential to prevent anything like that from happening again.
An official investigation was launched and therefore, the destruction of the physical evidence was a felony under NY state law.

Wrong.

See post . . . . . i'll post it again:

The law does not say that there had to be a crime, only that:

"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

Wrong.

No, but that is another issue.
I sited the law:
"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

The removal and destruction of the physical evidence was a felony IMO.

Ahh, after at least a dozen assertions that it was certain, now it's suddenly "in your opinion", I see. And you're still wrong.

If you disagree, then so be it.

Oh, I do.

I love it when someone who knows absolutely nothing about the law makes repeated, absolutely certain, intractable assertions purporting to interpret the law.

Especially when they, like you, Christopher7, are wrong.

 

[jhunter1163]

Before you start attempting to rebut Lash, Chris, I feel I must remind you that she is a lawyer. Rebut at your own risk.

 

[Christopher7]

Oh, I love it when someone who knows absolutely nothing about the law makes repeated, absolutely certain, intractable assertions purporting to interpret the law.
Especially when they, like you, Christopher7, are wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion, however, you are ignoring to POINT, which is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

This puts both theories of how WTC 7 collapsed on an equal footing.

The ONLY evidence to support either theory is:
the pictures, videos and witness statements.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So no evidence of a CD eh? Maybe they illegally removed the evidence of a fire and damaged induced collapse! oh my!

So we have tons of footage showing tons of debris hitting WTC, we have tons of footage of fires in the WTC 7, we have pictures and footage of gashes and damage that extend the entire height of the side of WTC 7, we have firefighters who talk about the building leaning and creaking.

Do we have any such evidence of bombs? Pictures of the bombs perhaps? Pictures or video of someone placing these bombs maybe? Anything other than assuming an explosion must be a bomb? Anything that isn't assumption at all?

 

[LashL]

You are entitled to your opinion, however, you are ignoring to POINT, which is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

No, Chris. I am addressing the erroneous POINT that you asserted at least a dozen times, i.e., that the steel was destroyed illegally, and the erroneous POINT you asserted repeatedly, i.e., that the removal and eventual destruction of the steel constituted a felony.

You repeated these erroneous assertions over and over again, and you are quite wrong. I would suggest that you retract your repeated assertions of illegality and felonious actions.

 

[LashL]

I don't know the federal statute that would apply here...

Gee, maybe you should look it up before you go around accusing people of committing felonies.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The reason for Chris's confusion is that he like others seem to think that NIST is doing some kind of criminal investigation and thus the removal impedes a criminal investigation. Of course this is nonsense. There wasn't really much question about how the building came to fell so after FEMA did some looking at it, the removed it as per usual. No one was running around thinking "We have to figure out how this happened", it was a no brainer. Then take into account the many different departments in such a large city and there shouldn't be much trouble with things not being communicated. It is a shame that the steel got removed for the sake of research and safety. But it was NOT a crime scene in the sense Chris is trying to base his claim on.