10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

No, "in my opinion" would be better

There was NO damage to or near columns 79, 80 or 81 from falling WTC 1 debris.
Even the unsubstantiated damage in the orange area is NOT near columns 79, 80 and 81.

Just because the gouge from top to bottum was further west does not mean there was not damage where the red and orange parts are.

The orange area is rather large. It would have created a large gouge. The only large hole was around floor 14, west of center, and
the 20+ story gouge between columns 5 & 6 [Smith#] west of center.

Barry Jennings seemed to think there were many many debris and damage in the lobby.

The firefighters that rescued Barry said there was no heavy debris in the lobby.
Barry did NOT say there was heavy debris in the lobby, he just said it was destroyed.

How can you possibly tell what damage was done internally to the building because it could not be seen from the exterior. Does this mean that there was no damage to any lifts because it could not be seen from outside?

The possible damage to core columns from the explosion that blew two elevator cars into the hallway north of the shaft [90' from the south side] was NOT near columns 79, 80 and 81.

There is NO evidence or reports of damage to or near columns 79, 80 or 81 and NO reason to believe there was.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7,

Are you conceding that you were wrong in your repeated assertions that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of some* of the steel from the site was illegal?

No, The law states:

[FONT=&quot]New York[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Penal Law Section 215.40 - [/FONT]Tampering with physical evidence.
A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction[FONT=&quot],

*99%


[/FONT]I do not know the federal statute for the destruction of evidence but you do.

Would you please post it?

 

[LashL]

No, The law states:

Christopher7,

Let's assume for the moment that the state law you've cited repeatedly actually applies (even though it doesn't).

Even if it did apply, the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of some of the steel was NOT a violation of this law. Do you really not understand why?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The reason he doesn't know why is the same reason twoofers don't understand why they aren't taken seriously or don't understand why they don't understand people like us not seeing all these things as crimes. So of course Chris is not going to get it.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7,

Let's assume for the moment that the state law you've cited repeatedly actually applies (even though it doesn't).

Why not?

Even if it did apply, the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of some of the steel was NOT a violation of this law.

Get serious.
The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence needed to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a violation of this law [it happened in the state of NY] and federal law.

Once again, will you please post the federal statute regarding the destruction of evidence and when it applies?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

See, I told you he wouldn't get it.

 

[LashL]

Why not?

I was going to tell you, but you continue to make assertions of fact (such as in the third sentence of your post) despite the fact that you have no basis for doing so. Thus, I view this as a learning opportunity for you to try to puzzle it out for yourself.

Get serious.

I am quite serious. Unlike yourself, I actually know a thing or two about the law and about statutory interpretation. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer to simply choose a few words here and there, misinterpret them, and ignore all of the other important words.

The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence needed to determine the cause of the total collapseof WTC 1, 2 and 7 steel was a violation of this law [it happened in the state of NY] and federal law.

First, nice attempt at rhetoric by inserting nonsense, but don't bother. It adds nothing to the discussion and only makes you look like a fool.

Second, no, the removal, sale and/or destruction of the steel by those authorized to do so was not a violation of the law, either state or federal.

Once again, will you please post the federal statute regarding the destruction of evidence and when it applies?

See above.

 

[Christopher7]

I was going to tell you, but you continue to make assertions of fact (such as in the third sentence of your post) despite the fact that you have no basis for doing so. Thus, I view this as a learning opportunity for you to try to puzzle it out for yourself.

You dodged the question. Why do you think the state law does not apply?

The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence needed to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a violation of this law [it happened in the state of NY] and federal law.

First, nice attempt at rhetoric by inserting nonsense,

Nonsense?
Are you saying it is not necessary to examine the physical evidence to determine how all 3 buildings collapsed totally?
Lacking sufficient physical evidence, NIST did not and cannot explain anything past the initiation of the collapse in the Trade Towers.

Second, no, the removal, sale and/or destruction of the steel by those authorized to do so was not a violation of the law, either state or federal.

Circular [Nixonian] logic. No one is authorized to break the law.
Whoever authorized the removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence, broke the law.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Once again, will you please post the federal statute regarding the destruction of evidence and when it applies?

See above.

Can you spell cop-out?

What is the federal statute?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

LOL!

 

[LashL]

You dodged the question.

Not at all. I've told you that the answer is easy to find, and I am trying to coax you into finding it for yourself because the exercise will be extremely beneficial to you. You tend to post numerous assertions as factual even when they are entirely unsupported and even when they are dead wrong, so this will be a valuable learning experience for you, and one that is very easy to resolve. That is why I want you to do it for yourself.

Why do you think the state law does not apply?

The answer will be obvious to you - as it is to nearly everyone else on the planet - once you engage in the straightforward process noted above.

Nonsense?

Yes, your reframing of the matter at issue was and remains utter nonsense.

Circular [Nixonian] logic. No one is authorized to break the law. Whoever authorized the removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence, broke the law.

Wrong again. On all counts.

There is nothing whatsoever in my post that amounts to circular or Nixonian logic. It is your own startlingly poor reading comprehension that leads you astray once again.

You really have to do better if you expect anyone to take you seriously. Try reading for comprehension and try getting a grasp on statutory interpretation before you embarrass yourself further.

Can you spell cop-out?

Why, yes. Yes, I can. Unfortunately for you, however, the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion, and your use of it will not cajole me into giving you the answer since, as I've stated previously, the purpose is to get you to educate yourself on certain points that you erroneously, and repeatedly, post as factual when they are not. You seem most unwilling to do so. Why is that?

What is the federal statute?

See above.

 

[GT/CS]

Chris, my old friend, I strongly suggest you do a search on "George Simpson" before you continue this losing battle with LashL.

 

[funk de fino]

The firefighters that rescued Barry said there was no heavy debris in the lobby.
Barry did NOT say there was heavy debris in the lobby, he just said it was destroyed.

He said it was destroyed, he said it looked like king kong had been in there. He also said he was taken out through a big hole in the wall.

The possible damage to core columns from the explosion that blew two elevator cars into the hallway north of the shaft [90' from the south side] was NOT near columns 79, 80 and 81.

Now assuming explosions Chris? Just because damage cannot be seen from ouside does not mean it was not caused by the WTC tower. Your initial claim was erroneous.

There is NO evidence or reports of damage to or near columns 79, 80 or 81 and NO reason to believe there was.

Yet, you do not have all the evidence?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Not at all. I've told you that the answer is easy to find, and I am trying to coax you into finding it for yourself because the exercise will be extremely beneficial to you. You tend to post numerous assertions as factual even when they are entirely unsupported and even when they are dead wrong, so this will be a valuable learning experience for you, and one that is very easy to resolve. That is why I want you to do it for yourself.





The answer will be obvious to you - as it is to nearly everyone else on the planet - once you engage in the straightforward process noted above.





Yes, your reframing of the matter at issue was and remains utter nonsense.




Wrong again. On all counts.

There is nothing whatsoever in my post that amounts to circular or Nixonian logic. It is your own startlingly poor reading comprehension that leads you astray once again.

You really have to do better if you expect anyone to take you seriously. Try reading for comprehension and try getting a grasp on statutory interpretation before you embarrass yourself further.





Why, yes. Yes, I can. Unfortunately for you, however, the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion, and your use of it will not cajole me into giving you the answer since, as I've stated previously, the purpose is to get you to educate yourself on certain points that you erroneously, and repeatedly, post as factual when they are not. You seem most unwilling to do so. Why is that?





See above.

"Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh!"

 

[jaydeehess]

Let me take a stab at this.

In order for there to have been an infraction concerning the destruction of evidence in a crime the material in question must be shown to directly involved in said crime. Material is only considered 'evidence' when a crime has been determined to have taken place and only if it can supply information on that specific crime.

The TM assumes an ill defined crime first, that it was not the aircraft impact and resultant fires that caused the collspes but rather something, anything, else. There is no logical reason to suspect anything other than the aircraft impacts and resultant fires caused the collapses. There is therefore no crime in which the steel is evidence for.


The steel of the buildings has no bearing whatsoever on the actual crimes committed, the hijacking of and deliberate crashing of those aircraft into buildings to commit mass murder and suicide. Thus the steel is of no evidentiary concern and is nothing more than rubble. Had the DFDR and cockpit voice recorder been recovered and found usable then their destruction after the fact would have indeed constituted tampering with evidence since they would shed light on the only real crime for which there is any reason to believe was committed that day.

-------------------------------

If a person (or persons) is killed in a 25 car pile up on a highway caused by a tractor-trailer jacknifing on the freeway the police will not be keeping the wreckage of the 25 cars and the tractor-trailer. If the truck driver is found on the scene to be intoxicated, the police will also not keep the wreckage of the truck as evidence either. The crime was DUI and causing death but the wreckage serves no evidentiary purpose. In a trial all that would be required are pictures of the scene.

 

[Christopher7]

Not at all. I've told you that the answer is easy to find

That's not the way a debate works. If you make a claim, you have to back it up.
I posted the state law stating that it is a felony to destroy physical evidence that "is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding."
The law applies because:
The unprecedented total collapse of 3 skyscrapers requires an official proceeding to determine the cause. An official proceeding was inevitable.

You say the law doesn't apply. State your reason.

Furthermore, you refuse to post the federal statute on destruction of physical evidence because it probably says the same thing.
This was definitely a federal crime scene. Do you agree?

Originally Posted by C7
The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence needed to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a violation of this law [it happened in the state of NY] and federal law.

Yes, your reframing of the matter at issue was and remains utter nonsense.

I'm stating the reason for the law.
FACT:
The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence severely hampered the ability of NIST to determine how the Trade Towers and building 7 collapsed completely.

Are you saying that the physical evidence was not important to the investigation?

FACT:
Lacking sufficient physical evidence, NIST did not, because they could not, explain anything past the initiation of the collapse of the Trade Towers, in their FINAL report!

Are you saying that is not important to determine the cause of the total collapse of all 3 buildings?

Quote:
Second, no, the removal, sale and/or destruction of the steel by those authorized to do so was not a violation of the law, either state or federal.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Circular [Nixonian] logic. No one is authorized to break the law. Whoever authorized the removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence, broke the law.

There is nothing whatsoever in my post that amounts to circular or Nixonian logic.

Nix nix
We are a nation of laws. No one is allowed to break the law.
Who was authorized to ignore this state and federal laws? Show me the statute.

 

[Christopher7]

In order for there to have been an infraction concerning the destruction of evidence in a crime the material in question must be shown to directly involved in said crime.

Wrong.
It is not necessary for there to be a crime, only that the physical evidence "is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

He still doesn't get it, figures.

 

[DGM]

By his interpretation of that code it would be a felony to throw anything away. Are we all felons Chris?

 

[Jwheelz]

Wrong.
It is not necessary for there to be a crime, only that the physical evidence "is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding."

NYC Penal Law Article 215.40 states ---

S 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.

To understand what they mean by physical evidence and "official proceeding" they have included Section 215.35 which states ---

S 215.35 Tampering with physical evidence; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to section 215.40:
1. "Physical evidence"; means any article, object, document, record or
other thing of physical substance which is or is about to be produced or
used as evidence in an official proceeding.
2. "Official proceeding" means any action or proceeding conducted by
or before a legally constituted judicial, legislative, administrative or
other governmental agency or official, in which evidence may properly be
received.

The question then becomes, what official proceeding, and which legally constituted judicial, legislative, administrative or other governmental agency or official were about to have this evidence presented to them.

It simply isn't feasible or even reasonable to keep every last piece of matter connected to any particular crime packed up until every last person on the earth is satisfied with the results. It should be fairly obvious to anyone without the CT goggles on that a plane flying into each of the twin towers was the initial cause of the collapses.

The steel involved might make for study material for architects or engineers to better understand the collapses but kept as evidence of a crime???

Only in the eyes of CT's is there any type of a push for a new investigation. Only in the eyes of CT's are there still questions that haven't been answered a thousand times over. Your tiny pathetic movement is severely lacking of competent individuals and educated professionals in any of the relevant fields which is why the most that the 911 truth organizations can do is poison the Internet with their garbage and stay far away from debating true professionals.

I find it absolutely amazing that someone like Chris would come here and try to act like he has a better understanding of the law than some of the people he is debating with who have studied and worked in the legal field for years.

Just keep on bending the facts to support your delusions - that is certainly the twoof mantra.

 

[Christopher7]

NYC Penal Law Article 215.40 states ---

S 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.

To understand what they mean by physical evidence and "official proceeding" they have included Section 215.35 which states ---

S 215.35 Tampering with physical evidence; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to section 215.40:
1. "Physical evidence"; means any article, object, document, record or
other thing of physical substance which is or is about to be produced or
used as evidence in an official proceeding.
2. "Official proceeding" means any action or proceeding conducted by
or before a legally constituted judicial, legislative, administrative or
other governmental agency or official, in which evidence may properly be
received.

The question then becomes, what official proceeding, and which legally constituted judicial, legislative, administrative or other governmental agency or official were about to have this evidence presented to them.

FEMA and then NIST.

It simply isn't feasible or even reasonable to keep every last piece of matter connected to any particular crime packed up until every last person on the earth is satisfied with the results.

On the other hand, the destruction of 99% of the physical evidence severely hampered the ability of FEMA and NIST to determine the cause of the total collapse of all 3 buildings.
The physical evidence could have and should have been preserved at the Fresh Kills site and other sites.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone without the CT goggles on that a plane flying into each of the twin towers was the initial cause of the collapses.

NIST did NOT explain the total collapse. They stopped at the collapse initiation.

The steel involved might make for study material for architects or engineers to better understand the collapses but kept as evidence of a crime???

Read the law you just posted. There is no mention of a crime being necessary, just an official proceeding, or a prospective official proceeding
The physical evidence was essential to determine the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

Only in the eyes of CT's is there any type of a push for a new investigation.

Actually, a majority of Americans want a new investigation.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5039

And that number is growing.