FBI workers remove evidence

I still think it is absolutely impossible to not contaminate a crime scene as large as the multiple city blocks of the Trade Centers. To compare it to the OJ Simpson murder scene is interesting 2 fold. That scene was the size of one office, not even figuring in the destruction aspect, so was 8000 times smaller. The 2nd thing is that it is now quite obvious to everyone that OJ is guilty, but evidence was suppressed because of a very shrewd legal team and a judge looking for his 15 minutes of fame.

Regardless, removing a few items from the scene was not right, but it (yet again) is not evidence of any conspiracy. Once again, after years of investigation, no evidence points to a conspiracy. There has been some cover my ass type things, but nothing even that significant.

You seem to have misunderstood an article and proceeded to blow it out of proportion… once again.

Originally posted by _Del_
If there is an arson fire, and fire fighters disturb the scene while rescuing trapped victims, do we throw out all evidence?

1. We are not talking about arson.

2. We are not talking about fire fighters disturbing the scene.

WE ARE talking about trained FBI agents removing material from a crime scene and contaminating the evidence.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Once again, after years of investigation, no evidence points to a conspiracy.

Once again after years no one can post any actual evidence or official reports that support the official story.

Once again you confuse the point. ALL the evidence, eyewitnesses & video support something closer to the official story. You make extraordinary claims, so it is going to take more then a few misunderstood facts & constant innuendo to make anyone believe the CTers are more then basic wackos.

“WE ARE talking about trained FBI agents removing material from a crime scene and contaminating the evidence”

… THAT has nothing to do with conspiracy. I’m sure there was a security guard in one of the towers making a personal phone call at the time too, but WHAT exactly does that have to do with ANYTHING? Nothing.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
… THAT has nothing to do with conspiracy.

Let's find out what they stole before we jump to the conclusion that it wasn't a conspiracy shall we? What exactly was taken?

Was it plane parts? Was it evidence of controlled demolition? We don't know what they took, so how can we jump to any conclusion of conspiracy or no conspiracy yet?

All I've seen Ultima do here is point out that there was evidence taken from a crime scene by FBI agents. I haven't seen where he insinuated anything about a conspiracy. Just that the crime scene was contaminated by these trained agents.

You guys are the ones who are jumping to conspiracy here, not us. "Debunking" 9/11 must be getting pretty hard when people have to resort to jumping to conclusions that a poster is insinuating anything that this person hasn't said.

You guys are the ones who are jumping to conspiracy here, not us. "Debunking" 9/11 must be getting pretty hard when people have to resort to jumping to conclusions that a poster is insinuating anything that this person hasn't said.

… well it certainly isn’t hard when all the facts support one theory, yet people are constantly looking for any chinc in the armour to cast doubt. If it wasn’t ultimately leading to that, it shouldn’t be posted on this board. Honestly I think it is more that the OP misunderstands what this even means, but decided to add it to their bank of useless facts. Simply questioning a fact doesn't make it less of a fact, whether you understand the answer or not.

Just liking pretty shiny things doesn’t make someone a jeweler.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
whether you understand the answer or not.

Do you understand the answer? Do you know what exactly was taken?

The following was a main reason why I was saying this is big (pun intended). Until I found out something before I posted it. I just want you to see why I thought it was a bigger deal than it possibly is.

Re-read the OP. The GD Tiffany Globe was stolen and returned to the inspector general. I doubt security can claim small objects on that one. If security at the site was so lax as being able to take the tiffany globe, what else could have been taken away? We don't even have to go into a conspiracy here. It's blatant misconduct. Period.

OK. Found something else. It wasn't the Tiffany Globe. It was a paper weight. But, there is also a report of someone taking a firetruck door.

www.worth1000.com...

I doubt that could have fit in someone's pocket.

FBI Bans Agents From Removing Any Items From Crime Scenes

The FBI has banned agents from removing anything from crime scenes after a Justice Department review found 13 agents took chunks of concrete, pieces of metal, U.S. flags and a Tiffany globe paperweight from the rubble of the World Trade Center. None of the agents has been charged with a crime. Some of the agents who removed items from the scene apparently saw them as harmless mementos that would serve as reminders of the long, difficult hours they spent sifting through evidence at the landfill, officials said. The disclosures were contained in a still-confidential report prepared by Glenn Fine, the Justice Department inspector general. The report additionally stated that items were taken by FBI agents after the Oklahoma City bombing, in the investigation of Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, and in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. According to the report, after the Tiffany globe from the World Trade Center turned up in an FBI field office, federal prosecutors decided not to bring charges against a government contractor accused of stealing a fire truck door that was mangled in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The investigation was prompted by Jane Turner, a 25-year special agent who noticed the Tiffany globe on a secretary’s desk in the Minneapolis FBI office in August 2002. After learning it came from the World Trade Center, she brought the globe to the attention of the inspector general. Turner claims in a whistleblower lawsuit that she was retaliated against and forced to retire. The FBI acknowledges forcing her out but has said the action had nothing to do with the investigation.

www.federaldaily.com...

On a side note: Notice how they forced this whistelblower out. And people wonder why no one wants to talk. They forced out a whistleblower just because she told about "memento taking". Imagine what they would do if you ratted them out about bigger things? Why was "Deep Throat" still in hiding until his death bed for 30 years after he took down Nixon? Think about it.

[edit on 6/6/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/6/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
ALL the evidence, eyewitnesses & video support something closer to the official story.

All of what evidence? I have yet to see any actual evidence that supports the official story.

Eyewitnesses could not agree on what they saw.

What videos, there are no videos of AA77 hitting the Pentagon?



[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Simply questioning a fact doesn't make it less of a fact, whether you understand the answer or not.

The fact is that FBI agents removed items from a crime scene, How hard is that to understand?

Removing items from a crime scene CONTAMINATES THE EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The fact is that FBI agents removed items from a crime scene, How hard is that to understand?

Removing items from a crime scene CONTAMINATES THE EVIDENCE.

Griff made a good point as to what exactly they took. If the small piece of concrete and metal that they took were really that small, then what makes you think that it would have been collected? Though how that one guy got away with a fire truck door is beyond me (though slightly amusing).

Lets just say that they did recover 80% of the 757 (in the evidence that you say they haven't released) and the parts that the agents took would have made it 80.5%. They still have proof that it was the 757 in question even without the parts the agents took.

I'm content with Griff's post where the article says that they did know what they took and documented it.

I agree that acting professionally, they shouldn't have taken those items. However, I don't blame them for getting caught up in the moment and wanting to take a small momento of a historic event. They are still human after all.

Originally posted by HLR53K
I'm content with Griff's post where the article says that they did know what they took and documented it.

But the point remains that since they did take items the crime scene evdence can now be called into question.

Any case going to court a lawyer could use this fact to question the evidence and how it was collected and the chain of custody.





[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But the point remains that since they did take items the crime scene evdence can now be called into question.

Any case going to court a lawyer could use this fact to question the evidence and how it was collected and the chain of custody.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Yes, I agree that it can be. However, I find it a bit ridiculous to throw out ever last bit of other evidence that was collected just because of these few items.

If they documented exactly what was taken, who took it, and recollected it for examination of tampering, they could at least put to rest some of the concerns. They could even separate those items from the others.

Worst case, I could see them having to reexamine the other collected evidence again. But that would work out in our favor, since it gives a second pass over it which could uncover new evidence. Though the almost 7 years that have passed may have damaged some of the time-sensitive materials.

Originally posted by HLR53K
Yes, I agree that it can be. However, I find it a bit ridiculous to throw out ever last bit of other evidence that was collected just because of these few items.

The problem would be with a jury case where this could be considered reasonable doubt about the way the evidence was collected and maintained.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The problem would be with a jury case where this could be considered reasonable doubt about the way the evidence was collected and maintained.

Maybe. But if it came to that, then all that would need to be done is a reexamination of all the collected evidence. Tedious and expensive, yes, but necessary.

Or even better, the logs of the chain of custody and collection procedure can be brought forth as evidence that for the items collected (not the momentos that were taken), it was done according to the book.

However, you and I both know that there's not a stone's throw in hell that it's going to lead to a new court case. As far as the legal system's concerned, the offending agents were dealt with in a proper and professional manner.

Originally posted by HLR53K
As far as the legal system's concerned, the offending agents were dealt with in a proper and professional manner.

Yes, but its still the fact of items being removed which by crime scene protocol does state contaminates the scene and could cause even more questions later on.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes, but its still the fact of items being removed which by crime scene protocol does state contaminates the scene and could cause even more questions later on.

I've bolded the key to the whole question. It could cause questions later on by a formal judicial body, but you and I both know that it won't.

Originally posted by HLR53K
but you and I both know that it won't.

Well it could if its brought up in court.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well it could if its brought up in court.

But why would it be? Is there a court case that is directly affected by the evidence that was gathered?

Originally posted by HLR53K
But why would it be? Is there a court case that is directly affected by the evidence that was gathered?

Well there are the cases that are going to court about people and companies lying.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well there are the cases that are going to court about people and companies lying.

By court, do you mean trial? It's two completely different things. You can go to court without going to trial and having the need of a jury.