Planet Mancow!

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check

[/quote]

I about fell out of my chair when I clicked on your link. From your link.

“Well, first of all, the American people saw things not with their own eyes but on television, which is comprised nowadays of digital information, which can be manipulated by computers. So, right off the top, Gates’ premise is flawed. And while the towers are gone, people have, both with their own eyes and on TV, seen magic performed before; eyes can be deceived.”

Enough said.

22

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
lucasa wrote:

Never mind the (for sake of arguement) “coincidence” that the 9/11 piece in PM was written by Benjamin Chertoff (cousin of Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security)

One thing, that’s a myth. Here’s Benjamin Chertoff explaining it himself.

"Here’s the story, as best as I know: I’m not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I’ve never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I’d heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we’d already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only “Chris”), she said “they might be distant cousins.” Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked “Were you the senior researcher on the story?” I said, “I guess so,” – that’s not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story."

http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html

Is this government created website the only one you can come up with to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

WTF, this wesbite sucks and you fail to acknowldge how bad it is. Please link something else. That article proves nothing more than you believe cannon fodder is a viable option.
[/quote]

So, did you even read Benjamin Chertoff’s response? About how the “cousin” myth got started?

And, I have plenty of links. Would you like engineering articles describing the collapses? I’ll link those for you, if you wish. Will you read them? Or will they too, be written off as part of the “government conspiracy?”

23

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
lucasa wrote:

Never mind the (for sake of arguement) “coincidence” that the 9/11 piece in PM was written by Benjamin Chertoff (cousin of Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security)

One thing, that’s a myth. Here’s Benjamin Chertoff explaining it himself.

"Here’s the story, as best as I know: I’m not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I’ve never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I’d heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we’d already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only “Chris”), she said “they might be distant cousins.” Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked “Were you the senior researcher on the story?” I said, “I guess so,” – that’s not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story."

http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html

Is this government created website the only one you can come up with to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

WTF, this wesbite sucks and you fail to acknowldge how bad it is. Please link something else. That article proves nothing more than you believe cannon fodder is a viable option.

So, did you even read Benjamin Chertoff’s response? About how the “cousin” myth got started?

And, I have plenty of links. Would you like engineering articles describing the collapses? I’ll link those for you, if you wish. Will you read them? Or will they too, be written off as part of the “government conspiracy?” [/quote]

Yes, I read what the government created website you linked, the only source up can come up with, response to Chertoff’s relative rumor got started. It was crap. You are waning from the premise of this argument. You need to debunk how a building with no structural damage falls at terminal velocity, remember the lower 50 floors of the WTC buildings? Unles your arguin those floors were not built to withstand the weight of the floors above them.

Sure. go ahead. Link to me an explanation of how air, steel, cement, and human bodies fail to slow a falling object, namely a building, and permit it to fall at terminal velocity.

I might even go as far as to say those items acelerated the fall, because a feather does not fall that fast with air as its only resistance.

24

[quote]Petedacook wrote:

Yes, I read what the government created website you linked, the only source up can come up with, response to Chertoff’s relative rumor got started. It was crap.
[/quote]

Testing to see if I can break up these quotes. Ignore.

Test test test. Will edit in responses if I’ve got the hang of this. Want to be able to break up arguements for easier counter-arguements.

25

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One thing, that’s a myth. Here’s Benjamin Chertoff explaining it himself.

"Here’s the story, as best as I know: I’m not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I’ve never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I’d heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we’d already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only “Chris”), she said “they might be distant cousins.” Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked “Were you the senior researcher on the story?” I said, “I guess so,” – that’s not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story."

http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html[/quote]

First of all “myth” implies “not true” – they ARE cousins.

Whether they know each other or not is another story. The point is, it is relative (pardon the pun) and undermines the credibility of a piece whose sole purpose is to debunk government involvement in 9/11.

Chertoff might be a wildly common name in Russia – personally I’ve only heard of the name Chertoff twice – the first time as head of Homeland Security, and second, a guy who writes a story debunking the event that lead to the CREATION of Homeland Security.

To think that at a professional magazine, printing a headline piece debunking conspiracies about the federal government, with all the people involved – somebody at some point wouldn’t have said, Chertoff, Chertoff… where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, head of Homeland Security, Chertoff – any relation?

And then anybody with half-a-wit would have said, “Maybe an article about CONSPIRACY THEORIES shouldn’t be authored by a guy who is IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, related to the HEAD of HOMELAND SECURITY – it might not look right.”

Perception is EVERYTHING.

26

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, you chose the wrong picture as evidence. That’s from a welding tool…

Scroll down to the welding pics…There’s your angle cut in progress. Note the slag directly below the cut. Oh, and note the yellow smoke in the pic with the guy cutting the beam. That’s important.

And then, read the whole thing, top to bottom. And realize how silly it was to use that picture.
[/quote]

The bottom line is that gravity alone did not drive the top 1/4 of the WTC into the UNDAMAGED bottom 3/4 of the buildings at just shy of terminal velocity – almost as if it was like an empty paper towel roll standing on end and you crushed it with a cinder block.

What they are saying is the WTC towers were like a giant game of Jenga. Absent the plane crashes, if an upper floor would have failed in one of the trade center towers for whatever HYPOTHETICAL reason – we would have seen the EXACT same complete, catastrophic collapse as happened on 9/11?!

Picture the sheer absurdity of a giant New Years eve bash on an upper floor of one of the towers. It turns out the entire floor is way over capacity and everyone is dancing. Suddenly, the rusty bolts anchoring the joists give way and the WTC proceeds to disintegrate into a mangled pile of structural steel and pulverized reinforced concrete in only a matter of seconds…

27

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Um, you chose the wrong picture as evidence. That’s from a welding tool…

Scroll down to the welding pics…There’s your angle cut in progress. Note the slag directly below the cut. Oh, and note the yellow smoke in the pic with the guy cutting the beam. That’s important.

And then, read the whole thing, top to bottom. And realize how silly it was to use that picture.

The bottom line is that gravity alone did not drive the top 1/4 of the WTC into the UNDAMAGED bottom 3/4 of the buildings at just shy of terminal velocity – almost as if it was like an empty paper towel roll standing on end and you crushed it with a cinder block.

What they are saying is the WTC towers were like a giant game of Jenga. Absent the plane crashes, if an upper floor would have failed in one of the trade center towers for whatever HYPOTHETICAL reason – we would have seen the EXACT same complete, catastrophic collapse as happened on 9/11?!

Picture the sheer absurdity of a giant New Years eve bash on an upper floor of one of the towers. It turns out the entire floor is way over capacity and everyone is dancing. Suddenly, the rusty bolts anchoring the joists give way and the WTC proceeds to disintegrate into a mangled pile of structural steel and pulverized reinforced concrete in only a matter of seconds…
[/quote]

Um, you do realize it wasn’t just one floor, right? Horrible analogy. Do me a favor, look at the impact zones. Now, count up all the floors above them…

I’m getting the impression you believe the very top floor gave, then the next, the the next, and so on. No, they gave at the impact zones. All those floors game down above.

28

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

– almost as if it was like an empty paper towel roll standing on end and you crushed it with a cinder block.
[/quote]

Heh, thought that was interesting. An empty paper towel roll. A tube. I believe it was the designers who described the buildings as a tube within a tube.

29

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, you do realize it wasn’t just one floor, right? Horrible analogy. Do me a favor, look at the impact zonez. Now, count up all the floors above them…[/quote]

So basically what you are arguing is that a crime scene, when of a significant magnitude, is not worth investigating because we can summise based on what the media has presented us with, what caused the crime to occur? Therefore, investigation is irrelevant.

Hmmmmmm… that makes sense and I hope it is employed by local government…I have a plan for my son’s mother that fits well into this category of crimes.

Seriously:
To say a crime scene should not be investigated because: “Um, you do realize it wasn’t just one floor, right?” is pure idiocy.

Yet you haul off and call me a “loony.”

Grow up man, there is nothing wrong with asking that crime scenes be investigated, and related parties questioned before being flown out of the country on government chartered planes.
Your argument is ridiculous.

30

By the way, why are you hung up on the fact they collapsed at approximate free fall speed?

When those upper floors came down throught the impact zones, with that much energy, the lower floors might as well have been held up with wet noodles. Heck each floor only provided more mass to the next once it passed through the impact zones.

Oh yes, with intact structure, the WTC supported it’s STATIC load easily. But, that much dynamic energy slamming down through the buildings…no way.

31

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Um, you do realize it wasn’t just one floor, right? Horrible analogy. Do me a favor, look at the impact zonez. Now, count up all the floors above them…

So basically what you are arguing is that a crime scene, when of a significant magnitude, is not worth investigating because we can summise based on what the media has presented us with, what caused the crime to occur? Therefore, investigation is irrelevant.

Hmmmmmm… that makes sense and I hope it is employed by local government…I have a plan for my son’s mother that fits well into this category of crimes.

Seriously:
To say a crime scene should not be investigated because: “Um, you do realize it wasn’t just one floor, right?” is pure idiocy.

Yet you haul off and call me a “loony.”

Grow up man, there is nothing wrong with asking that crime scenes be investigated, and related parties questioned before being flown out of the country on government chartered planes.
Your argument is ridiculous.
[/quote]

First, when did I call you “loony?” Second, what do you mean the crime scene wasn’t investigated?

And, I already told you, the Bin Laden was was investigated. They were flown out on the 20th. The FBI intervied them, and checked the members of their party against the terrorism database.

I don’t think there is a government on earth that connects Bin Laden’s family to AL Qaeda. You realize he is disowned, right? They are a very western people. He’s the one that went all radical.

You should read a biography on him. The guy grew up dressing like a westerner from a highly respected family. He later became involved in a highly radicalized sect of Islam.

32

Here Pete, I posted this in the other thread, concerning flying out Bin Laden’s family.

"False. They were flown out on the 20th. And, they had already been interviewed by the FBI. And, US airspace was not closed at the time. Unfortunately, this myth keeps going.

Look, I’m not trying to be mean. But, relying on conspiracy sites for facts is a bad idea. They tend to use each other as sources, passing the same misinformation back and forth. Do a google on Bin Laden family flown out 9-20, for stories."

33

About steel being quickly removed. It wasn’t entirley cleared out till May 2002.

http://www.wndu.com/news/052002/news_14322.php
“May 29 2002: As the last steel column of the demolished World Trade Center was removed Tuesday, construction workers at the site were honored for their work there since September 11th.”

And, as far investigators not having access to samples, this is Dr. W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Assement Team.
http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm
“There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures”.

34

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, why are you hung up on the fact they collapsed at approximate free fall speed?

[/quote]

The rest of your post is irrelevant. The fact that the building fell at free fall speed is cause for an investigation into the crime scene, let alone it is a crime scene and calls for treatment as such. A crime scene is a crime scene is a crime scene. Get it?

The point is, crime scene investigation did not occur as the crime scene evidence at ground zero was hurled off to third world coutries by the government. By the way, that agency was working immediately after building 7 fell. Pertty cool hugh? Call 911 and see how fast the cops, or paramedics show up.

Let us set aside the questionable aspect that Federal Agencies showed up hours after the crime, eventhough FEMA took a week to show up in New Orleans even after the president was notified days earlier of the incident impending.

That put aside, it is purely idiotic to assert that ANY crime scene is not criminally investigated, and related people not questioned, regardless of the obvious nature of the crime scene. How can you question this?

To assume not investigating a crime scene because the catalyst is obvious is idiotic.

What if I catch my son’s mother, who is known for drinking, and choke a bottle of vodka down her throat causing alcohol overdose and death.

Assuming your idealism:

Well, her death was obviously caused by alcohol overdose, and she is known to be a drinker so it must have been her drinking too much which caused the death. Lets ignore the things that stand out causing us to question this hypothesis(in this scenario we will say bruises around the neck (she is a skank), scarring to the mouth and throat(deep throating too much), and skin under her finger nails(inot vioolenbt sex).

Lets not investigate the crime scene, the people related to the suspect, and lets diagnose this death as caused by alochol overdoes due to conscious consumptiom. No further tests will be conducted to ascertain what level of alcohol was in her, how she could have consumed so much, or what possibly could have driven her to consume alcohol past what would have caused her to “pass out.” Lets fly the last person seen with her out of the country to Guatamala and prevent them from being questioned. Why investigate such a crime? The cause is obvious. Relatives, friends, cohorts, all gone on a governement sponsered free flight to Timbuktu.

With that out of my way I can say:
This type of logic passes by me and I do not get it. So please Mr very slow animal, tell me why investigating a crime scene offends you so much when our government is involved?

Why was Osaman Bin Laden’s family given chartered flights out of the country without enduring criminal questioning while US citizens were not allowed to fly? Does ity not bother you that close family of the peson alleged responsible to 9-11 attacks get higher rights than law abiding US citizens?

why was ground zero not allowed to be a crime scene and investigated as such, why was the 9/11 commission fought so vehemently, then limited in their scope so seriously. I mean do you really know what the 9-11 commission was limited to questioning?

How can you really endorse this type of criminal investigation by our government? Our god dam government should conduct the best, most thorough criminal investigation in the history of man kind each time such a crime occurs because we evolve and criminal investigation evloves, and intellect evloves. Our investestigation tactics should evolve each investigation. Ever watch CSI? See how they investigate a crime scene? But in the scenario of 9-11 my 6 year old son could have done better. And that crime scene was handled by our government. The alleged supreme entity in the world!!!

How do you, or anyone, question this? Why do I need to point out these atrocities tob you? Because George Bush ordered an investigation to be done by NIST due to allegations of an inside job made by the majority of the population of the US?

Jesus man, get some common sense.

Geprge Bush and his cabinet called out the most decorated member in congress, John Murtha, then apologized when they realized that act was questioned by the majorithy of the population.

And dude, if you think I am a moron and or a lunatic, then you need to check yourself because investigating a crime scene is not even questioned in modern society.

What if explosives were used by terrorist assailants? What if the guard at the building allowed explosives to be planted, what if any number of things could have occured? The fact is WE DO NOT KNOW BECAUSE THE CRIME SCENE WAS SWEPT AWAY, AND THE RELATIVES OF THE ALLEGED MASTERMIND FLOWN AWAY WITHOUT QUESTION.

Get the point yet? Why is this so difficult? Why do I need to point this out? A crime scene is a crime scene is a crime scene…regardless of papers being published, regardles of he relatives affiliation. It is a crime, and a crime scene!!!

Has any papers been published on the OJ Simpson crime scene?

Jesus christ you people are dense!!!

35

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here Pete, I posted this in the other thread, concerning flying out Bin Laden’s family.

"False. They were flown out on the 20th. And, they had already been interviewed by the FBI. And, US airspace was not closed at the time. Unfortunately, this myth keeps going.
[/quote]

Where did you get this information from? When were they questioned? Because Michael Moore created a movie, Fahrenheight 9/11, stating they were flown out prior to that date without questoning.

Fact: asserting a false pretense is slander and punishable by law suit under slander. Michael Moore has not been prosectued for slander, and therefore I reasonably assume what he says is true.

What legal standard does your source stand up to? Hwere do you get this source? Rupert Murdoch?

36

[quote]Sloth wrote:
About steel being quickly removed. It wasn’t entirley cleared out till May 2002.
[/quote]

This is irrelevant to the fact that 1. criminal investigation was not allowed, and 2. the govt. agency was on scene within hours clearing the scene and allowed no other entity to investigate, regardless of facts demanding further investigation.

Sloth, my friend, you need to stop believing what is spoon fed to you by the mass media. I dont get my news from 9-11 conspiracy sites, I rely on mediamatters.com, BBc.com. and other sites and news sources related to Europe.

You could do to learn something about news in the US.

Do you really believe if Michale Moore portrayed BinLadin’s family being flown out fo the country incorrectly he would not be held accountable in civil law by Republican advocates?

Come on man, stop believing what you are spoon fed and what is fact.

people dont go to court and spew nonsense. people go to court and spew facts which is why Michael Moores has NOT been brought to court for liabel when he stated Bin Ladin’s family was flown out without question.

Do I really need to point this out to you?

37

Sloth,

If I have not made it clear before, allow me to say it now…you need to stop getting your news from Corporate News sources, and fighting conspiracy theories through non-conspiracy theory sites.

You need to review unbiased informated, review information on both sides of the fence, weigh all information, and form a view.

I have pointed out several things you were not aware of which tells me you are not well informed.

I watch fox, I watch CNN, I watch BBC, and I watch and monitor numerous Euopean news sources, as well as others in the states.

I have looked at 9-11 conspiracy sties, anti-9/11 conspriacy sites-reports-documents, and I can come to one conclusion…this was not treated as a crime scene and the affiliates of the crime were not questioned.

I can at this point assert you do not have an open mind and get your news from Corporate media.

You should not have engaged with me. I am a lunatic, but I am well spoken, and well informed.

38

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, as far investigators not having access to samples, this is Dr. W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Assement Team.
http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm
“There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures”.
[/quote]

Jesus man, why was local law enforcemennt not allowed to ample this? Why is it a federal government agency you site? Do you not see a problem with this since the government is in question on this crime?

And I have not even checked into the authenticity of your assertion. There are holes already.

Come on man, allow investigation into a crime scene. Need I quote congressman saying this is ridiculous?

Do your homewrk and stop typing search in yahoo to disprove the fact THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION.

39

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth,

If I have not made it clear before, allow me to say it now…you need to stop getting your news from Corporate News sources, and fighting conspiracy theories through non-conspiracy theory sites.

You need to review unbiased informated, review information on both sides of the fence, weigh all information, and form a view.

I have pointed out several things you were not aware of which tells me you are not well informed.

I watch fox, I watch CNN, I watch BBC, and I watch and monitor numerous Euopean news sources, as well as others in the states.

I have looked at 9-11 conspiracy sties, anti-9/11 conspriacy sites-reports-documents, and I can come to one conclusion…this was not treated as a crime scene and the affiliates of the crime were not questioned.

I can at this point assert you do not have an open mind and get your news from Corporate media.

You should not have engaged with me. I am a lunatic, but I am well spoken, and well informed. [/quote]

Excuse me? You’ve done nothing, but post outdated information. Or, information that was completely false. “Experts” who aren’t related to relevant fields (Jones). Hell, not one of these ‘experts’ has been able to get a paper through a peer reviewed engineering journal. Not a damn one. You even admit to that. Hello, shouldn’t that tell you something about your experts? Yet, you question my ability to find direct and qualified sources?

You posted a picture of “molten” metal, that wasn’t molten. You continue to talk about a crime scene, and a hasty investigation. You talk about local authorities not doing an investigation (Hello, this is a federal crime!). Yet, I just posted a link where the Head of Building Performance Assesment addressed your Congressmens’ concerns. And, you got the Bin Laden family story wrong.

What have I not been aware of? Jones? The “molten” metal pic? The Bin Laden story? I’ve been aware of all those things. They’re old debunked issues. Ones I’ve been waiting to see if you, and others, would try to use, so I could throwdown the debunk.

You ignore seismographs, from several sources, demonstrating there were no explosive-demos. That the buildings visibly deformed (kinked, bowed, sagged, and tilted). All of which are visible signs of structural collapse. You ignore the structural loss throughout the impact zones. You ignore the weakening of the remaining structure, via 1000 Degree C. fires. You ignore video showing the buildings collapsing exactly at the impact zones.
And, you ignore that the consensus of Fire science journals, Engineering Journals, Structural and Civil Engineers…The buildings collapsed via structural loss and damage, compounded by weakening of support structures, due to high temperatures.

You blow right past every rebuttal, and don’t even try to address them. Instead, you brag that you view “non-corporate” media. Let me guess. Alter-net, Prison Planet, Truthout, Alex Jones related sites, 911truth, 911 “scholars,” various “Indy-X” sites, etc.?

Plus, you accuse of me of relying soley on 911 conspiracy debunking sites. I would ask you to review both posts related to this topic. Look through the links I’ve posted. Many of them are direct sources. The Firefighter testimonials on WTC7, for example.

40

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm
“There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures”.

And I have not even checked into the authenticity of your assertion. There are holes already.

Do your homewrk and stop typing search in yahoo to disprove the fact THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? That link is a report to Congress. It addressed some of the misinformation that some of the Congressman had. The debris was carried to a scrapyard.

The investigators had access to Ground Zero, and the scrapyard. They took sample, after sample. They weren’t going to sample every single piece of debris. That is an absolutely unrealistic expectation.