10 story hole in WTC 7

[DGM]

Chris:
How'd you make out with the NY DA?

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris:
How'd you make out with the NY DA?

Oh yeah, didn't someone ask Chris why, if this crime is so very blatant and obvious and would contravene NYC, NY State, and Federal laws concerning evidence tampering, have there been no city, state or federal charges or investigations about it. It is also noteworthy that no citizen has brought this to a court either. Surely if Morgan Reynolds can go to court saying that the planes were faked then someone can go to court and ask a judge to look into the charge that laws were broken in the disposal of the steel.

It truly boggles the mind that other than Reynolds, it seems that no TM group is actually interested in pursueing what they state they are interested in pursueing.

All they wanna do it argue about it on the interwebs.

 

[LashL]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/170604815b725af6ba.jpg

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

Arnold was always my favourite character on that show.

 

[LashL]

[FONT=&quot]

If you make a claim, you have to back it up.

Yes, indeed, and you have not yet supported your claims that the NY state law you cited applies or that it means that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of steel from the WTC site constitutes a felony.

You have merely cited the existence of a NY state law, misinterpreted it badly because you haven't a clue about how the law actually works, haven't a clue about statutory interpretation, haven't a clue about the elements of the offence that you claim have been met somehow, (heck, you probably don't even know what the "elements of the offence" means, let alone how to figure out whether or not the elements have been met), and you are simply taking a few words out of a statute and erroneously interpreting them in a way that suits your delusions.

Were you contemplating supporting your claim any time soon?


[/FONT]

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."

Ah, now, here is a valuable learning opportunity for you. Statutory interpretation 101: The drafters of statutes are presumed to have chosen their words carefully, and it is presumed that all of the words in any given statute have meaning. In other words, you cannot take only a few words out of a statute, ignore the rest, ignore their definitions, ignore their interplay with other sections and other statutes, and claim that the few words you've chosen to address mean what you want them to mean.

So, take a look at all of the important words that you have been ignoring, and that will give you a clue as to why and how you have gone so wrong.

I'll give you a couple of hints, since you seem to be struggling so badly: pay particular attention to the type of proceeding to which the state statute applies, and pay particular attention to the words that go to the mens rea and the actus reus[FONT=&quot] of the offence.

The law applies because:

Wrong.


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I'm stating the reason for the law.

No, you aren't. You have stated nothing but your own uneducated and uninformed interpretation of it, which has no basis in fact or law.


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

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

[/FONT] What on earth are you talking about? It appears that your lack of reading comprehension skills are once again on display for all to see. I did not say or suggest that anyone was authorized to ignore the state law you’ve cited or any particular federal law. You really need to brush up on your reading skills.

 

[jhunter1163]

I get feeling all squishy inside when LashL uses her lawyer voice.

(I'm kidding, for the benefit of those lurkers who happen to be married to me.)

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT=&quot]

Yes, indeed, and you have not yet supported your claims that the NY state law you cited applies or that it means that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of steel from the WTC site constitutes a felony.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] The law:

[/FONT] 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.


Let's take this one step at a a time.[FONT=&quot]

The evidence was [/FONT]about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding,

Yes or no?

 

[GlennB]

[FONT=&quot] The law:

[/FONT]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. ...
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.
...

This offence seems to require there to be an official proceeding in the offing, at which the evidence would likely be produced.

At the time of the disposal of WTC7 remains was there any such proceeding imminent or predictable in which debris would be needed in evidence?

If you're saying that all evidence from all damaging occurences must be kept forever in case legal prodeedings might, conceivably, one day, require them as evidence then we'll need some pretty damn huge storage facilities. For example, the remains and contents of every accidentally burned-down house would have to be kept in case someone - years down the line - shouted 'arson'.

But then, I'm no lawyer.

 

[Christopher7]

This offence seems to require there to be an official proceeding in the offing, at which the evidence would likely be produced.

At the time of the disposal of WTC7 remains was there any such proceeding imminent or predictable in which debris would be needed in evidence?

An investigation into these deadly building collapses was not only predictable, it was a certainty.
[There's probably a law requiring the preservation of evidence in a large structure collapse, but i'm not a lawyer either]

FEMA and NIST have since investigated the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the "progressive collapse" of all 3 buildings.

The lack of physical evidence severely hampered the investigations.

NIST did not and CANNOT explain the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

 

[tsig]

I get feeling all squishy inside when LashL uses her lawyer voice.

(I'm kidding, for the benefit of those lurkers who happen to be married to me.)

Makes me so glad I am not Chris. Those cuts have gotta hurt!

Lie about the law, die by LashL.

 

[tsig]

An investigation into these deadly building collapses was not only predictable, it was a certainty.
[There's probably a law requiring the preservation of evidence in a large structure collapse, but i'm not a lawyer either]

FEMA and NIST have since investigated the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the "progressive collapse" of all 3 buildings.

The lack of physical evidence severely hampered the investigations.

NIST did not and CANNOT explain the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

It's not the collapse but that they stood so long.

Gravity is the reason someday it will be your season.

I hope you open your eyes before the fall.

 

[Jwheelz]

An investigation into these deadly building collapses was not only predictable, it was a certainty.
[There's probably a law requiring the preservation of evidence in a large structure collapse, but i'm not a lawyer either]

FEMA and NIST have since investigated the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the "progressive collapse" of all 3 buildings.

The lack of physical evidence severely hampered the investigations.

NIST did not and CANNOT explain the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

Here you are mixing your opinion in with what actually happened. Both NIST and FEMA Investigated the structural steel. Neither organization has claimed that they planned to use discarded steel in any form of an official procedure. In order for there to be a crime under the penal law you posted, NIST/FEMA would have had to say that they did indeed wish to use some of the discarded steel in an official proceeding. Neither organization has done so.

Chris thinking that they should have saved more of the steel does not equal any obligation/want that either NIST or FEMA had to save the steel.

YOU are the one stating that THEY should have saved more of the structural steel. YOU do not get to set up an investigation on THEIR part. YOU can form as many opinions about their work as you like, it isn't going to make the removal of any of the debris illegal.

And by the way, nice link to the zogby poll. it is truly amazing the steps that truthers will take to make it seem like their case is a thousand times more important than it actually is.

 

[GlennB]

An investigation into these deadly building collapses was not only predictable, it was a certainty.

This may be where you're going wrong Chris, vis-a-vis the legal aspect. A technical investigation was a certainty, but legal investigations on the causes of the collapses were certainly not predictable. It took some years for 9/11 "truth" nuttery to build up a head of steam. But - as it happens - I can't even see many legal challenges being mounted by the 9/11 "truth" movement. D'oh! You totally expect legal challenges but don't mount any. Words fail me at this point.

 

[funk de fino]

NIST did not and CANNOT explain the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

Yes, they did, in their FAQs. In simple terms for stupid truthers

 

[Christopher7]

Both NIST and FEMA Investigated the structural steel. Neither organization has claimed that they planned to use discarded steel in any form of an official procedure. In order for there to be a crime under the penal law you posted, NIST/FEMA would have had to say that they did indeed wish to use some of the discarded steel in an official proceeding. Neither organization has done so.

They should have.
The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the total collapse.
The samples that were saved showed maximum steel temperatures of 250[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C. This was not sufficient to cause the collapse initiation.
They did not have sufficient samples to determine how the massive core columns in the lower part of the Trade Towers collapsed.
The numerous reports of explosions cannot be ignored and testing for explosives should have been done.

 

[Jwheelz]

They should have.
The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the total collapse.
The samples that were saved showed maximum steel temperatures of 250[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C. This was not sufficient to cause the collapse initiation.
They did not have sufficient samples to determine how the massive core columns in the lower part of the Trade Towers collapsed.
The numerous reports of explosions cannot be ignored and testing for explosives should have been done.

I understand it is your opinion that "they should have" however, they didn't. They didn't announce any plans to use any of the now discarded steel in an official presentation.

Can you agree to that?

Will you now stop saying that it was illegal to discard steel from the WTC site?

You can wish it to be illegal all you want, that doesn't make it illegal.

 

[adoucette]

They should have.
The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the total collapse.
The samples that were saved showed maximum steel temperatures of 250[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C. This was not sufficient to cause the collapse initiation.
They did not have sufficient samples to determine how the massive core columns in the lower part of the Trade Towers collapsed.
The numerous reports of explosions cannot be ignored and testing for explosives should have been done.

And its fine that you have YOUR opinion.

But

I'm curious Christopher,

How would NIST have unambiguously identify SPECIFIC pieces of steel in WTC 7 since they didn't have location markings like WTC columns?

How would NIST have determined the difference between damage caused BEFORE the collapse, DURING the collapse or AFTER the collapse (in the fires in the debris pile or in the process of recovery)?

Why would anyone who had witnessed the top down global collapse following the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires think that the study of the lower core columns would be in any way relevant to WHY the towers collapsed?

 

[Christopher7]

It's not the collapse but that they stood so long.

Gravity is the reason someday it will be your season.

Just saying that gravity caused the collapse does not qualify as an answer to how the Trade Towers collapse completely. It has to be proven that gravity caused the total symmetrical collapse of both towers. NIST did not.

 

[funk de fino]

They should have.
The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the total collapse.
The samples that were saved showed maximum steel temperatures of 250[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C. This was not sufficient to cause the collapse initiation.
They did not have sufficient samples to determine how the massive core columns in the lower part of the Trade Towers collapsed.
The numerous reports of explosions cannot be ignored and testing for explosives should have been done.

I do hope you are not suggesting fire temps in the twin towers did not reach 250 deg C? You have already had your ass handed to you over fire temps Chris.

The samples saved that they knew the location of pre collapse were the inportant ones Chris. You do know that those samples were sent to independant investigators and they agreed with NIST?

Can you verify that the forensic tests carried out at the staging areas did not include explosives checks?

 

[funk de fino]

Just saying that gravity caused the collapse does not qualify as an answer to how the Trade Towers collapse completely. It has to be proven that gravity caused the total symmetrical collapse of both towers. NIST did not.

NIST explain it Chris. If you disagree with their claims and findings on that then I suggest this is the time to show us your work?

I will give you a wee clue here. Gravity did not cause it. Fire did not cause it. Plane smashing into building did not cause it.

A combination of all of the above caused it. Please be accurate in your claims.

 

[Christopher7]

How would NIST have unambiguously identify SPECIFIC pieces of steel in WTC 7 since they didn't have location markings like WTC columns?

If they were allowed to inspect and select the evidence at the collapse site, they would have been able to positively identify steel from WTC 7.

How would NIST have determined the difference between damage caused BEFORE the collapse, DURING the collapse or AFTER the collapse (in the fires in the debris pile or in the process of recovery)?

NIST would have been able to identify steel framework deformed due to intense fire or severed with cutting charges.

Why would anyone who had witnessed the top down global collapse following the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires think that the study of the lower core columns would be in any way relevant to WHY the towers collapsed?

They were part of the collapse.
The question is: why did all three buildings collapse totally?
NIST does not answer this question.
They stop at collapse initiation.