The "Crime Scene" Nonsense

I mostly ignore this argument because it seems so patently absurd, but a lawyer resuscitates it in this article, so I thought it might be worth spending a couple minutes on.

All United States law students are required to complete a criminal law course. The examination to obtain their license to practice law has criminal law as one of the subjects covered. All lawyers are trained that the normal procedure is to yellow tape the crime scenes. No crime scene evidence is to be disturbed. You’ve seen this action numerous times on the CSI television shows. In the case of 9/11, no yellow tape of the scene was made to preserve the evidence. To the contrary, the scene was taped off to prevent investigation. Persons who identified themselves as Federal Bureau of Investigation agents collected the film from all known surveillance cameras around the 9/11 crime scenes. The evidence was immediately loaded on trucks, carried away and destroyed.

This almost seems like a parody of the Troofer's position, it's so ridiculously extreme. First, note the obvious contradiction: "No yellow tape of the scene was made to preserve the evidence...the scene was taped off...." I mean, what is is complaint here? Did they use the wrong color tape?




"The evidence was immediately loaded on trucks, carried away and destroyed."



Well, loaded on trucks, yes.

You know what really bugs me about this crap? Had the Bush Administration done as the "Truthers" now demand, they'd be howling for his head for having obstructed emergency personnel's access to the WTC site to search for survivors. I mean, can you see the cops and FBI putting up crime scene tape around the entire lower Manhattan, and saying to the firemen and other rescue workers, "Sorry, but we cannot allow you inside this line, because this is a crime scene. No, you can't move any of those steel beams to save lives, because we have to investigate each and every piece of steel for evidence of controlled demolition."

Check Everything

An admonition that apparently Mark Roberts lives by. I noticed a point Mark raised during his debate with the Loosers that I thought should be covered here as well. Loose Change mentions (about 32:10 into the 2nd Edition Recut) that "On February 23, 1991, a 38-story skyscraper in Philadelphia, built in 1973, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over eight floors. It did not collapse."

True enough, but misleading. The building was One Meridian Plaza. Here's the FEMA report on the fire. On page 17 of the report (page 22 of the PDF file), we find out why it burned for 19 hours:



What a shame Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin (who also cites the One Meridian Plaza fire) were not there to tell the firefighters to continue battling the blaze, that no steel-framed high rise had ever collapsed due to fire.

Kudos to Mark for catching this!

Update: 9-11 Truthiness points out this in the comments:

Structural Conditions Observed
"Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet --under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage"

He adds:

And remember this building had not been first hit by an aircraft going 480mph. It had fire fighting efforts in play to help cool the fires buning. The fire stopped when it reached floors where sprinklers were installed.

Excellent comment!