MISSING STEEL ?

[Danny White]

I'd  like to hear any comments on approximately how much, if any,  steel showed up missing from the towers before any

hauling off or shipping to China started.   If Shallel is right, I would think most of the core columns at least disappeared with the underground nukes.  Some of the lower exterior columns and spandrels survived almost intact.  Also, would the bolts have

vaporized faster or at a lower temperature than the columns?  ....  http://firefightersfor911truth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4283  ....  http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM  ....  http://missingsteel.blogspot.com/  ....  http://www.bollyn.com/who-sold-the-911-steel-for-scrap  ....  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Dir...  ....  http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&...

[Gina Judd]

One last thing I promise this is from that lawsuit I posted from before it makes an interesting point to all this about the steel and debris cleanup.  In essence hiring contractors is not part of the mayor's normal job duties:

n support of its argument, City submits the affidavit of David Varoli, General Counsel for the DDC. Mr. Varoli states that during the relevant time period, officials of the DDC, the Mayor's Office for Construction, the Corporation Counsel's Office and the Mayor's Office participated in numerous discussions regarding the emergency clean-up work at the WTC site. Mr. Varoli also states in his affidavit that "when major public works projects are planned and developed by the City of New York, it is important that the internal discussions that lead to final determinations not be open to the public." Amec counters that City is merely trying to maintain the secrecy surrounding the decisions and directions of the Mayor that resulted in how the clean-up was performed in order to shield the City from present and future liability. The predecisional privilege does not exist to shield the City from contract and/or tort liability. Although Amec concedes that City's "usual process for the formation of construction contracts for major public works" is protected by the pre-decisional privilege, Amec points out that the subject contract was not the result of the normal City contract formation process. Rather, the subject contract came about as the result of "an atypical interaction between the Mayor . . . and an Executive Deputy Commissioner, conducted totally outside of the City's normal contracting process." Thus, Amec argues, disclosure of those discussions will not have a chilling effect on contract negotiations for future public works projects. Further, Amec argues that as a result of the terrorist attacks, a National Emergency was declared and President Bush ordered that all funds necessary for damages suffered would be provided pursuant to the Stafford Act. Thus, there were no remaining policy decisions to be made when Burton met with Giuliani and discussed the terms and conditions of the clean-up contract. Those discussions concerned contractual/ministerial issues, not government policy.

[Gina Judd]

Sorry to be dominating this conversation Danny, but I wanted to add this. It's a good post from another site you might want to check it out. It seems that they've done a lot of research on the missing steel http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

[Gina Judd]

I believe that because the contractors began work on 9/11/01 (that very night) before any contracts had been drawn up, that they saw the opportunity to recycle the metal they were cleaning up. There is another case that supports that theory. There were four construction companies that were paid 10 million dollars each to do debris removal and cleanup, they picked these checks up directly from the mayors office according to an excerpt from a deposition in one of the cases I found, which involves Mazzocci:

2008 NY Slip Op 32797(U)
AMEC CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK and MAZZOCCHI WRECKING, INC. Respondents.
MAZZOCCHI WRECKING, INC.., Plaintiff,
v.
EVERGREEN RECYCLING OF CORONA and CITY OF NEW YORK Defendants.
TULLY ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (named herein and d/b/a EVERGREEN RECYCLING OF CORONA), Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
AMEC CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. and BOVIS LEND LEASE LMB, INC. Third-Party Defendants.
604391/04
Mot. Seq.: 002
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
October 8, 2008
Decision/Order
EILEEN A. RAKOWER, Judge
Immediately after the attack of September 11, 2001, The City of New York ("City") engaged, among others, four construction firms to assist in the recovery and debris removal efforts at the World Trade Center site. Plaintiff, Amec Construction Management, Inc. ("Amec"), was one of those firms, employed to oversee a portion of the debris removal during Phase I, a period from September 11, 2001 until January 2002. It is alleged that defendant Mazzocchi Wrecking, Inc. ("Mazzocchi") entered into a separate agreement with City, and was under Amec's oversight. Mazzocchi, in addition to work it performed during Phase I, performed work during Phase II as a "subcontractor" to Evergreen Recycling of Corona ("Evergreen"). Mazzocchi asserts that it had an oral agreement with City to do work during Phase II and that it was to submit its invoices to Evergreen for payment. Evergreen1 alleges that it acted as a subcontractor to both Amec and Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. ("Bovis").
Pursuant to an audit, City determined that Amec overpaid Mazzocchi by approximately 3,000,000 dollars. City withheld those funds, as a result, from Amec. Amec brings an action for breach of its agreement with City, seeking full reimbursement of the funds it paid out to Mazzocchi, or repayment by Mazzocchi. Mazzocchi brings its action as against Evergreen and City for payment for work it performed during Phase II. Evergreen brings its action against Amec and Bovis, seeking indemnification. All contracts are alleged to have been entered into with City through the Department of Design and Construction ("DDC"). Michael Burton was the First Deputy Commissioner of the DDC during the times relevant to the formation of the alleged agreements.
Initially, it appears that certain of the agreements between the parties to these actions are alleged to have been oral contracts with letters provided to evince the intent of the parties. Mr. Burton testified that he anticipated the contracts with the Construction Managers would be modeled on an existing contract for emergency repairs at Yankee Stadium. No single writing which purports to contain all of the terms of agreement between any of the respective parties is submitted.
During the course of discovery, on March 12, 2008, Michael Burton was produced for a deposition. His testimony included:
Q: You had testified just now about discussions and I'm talking about the first, the initial payment that would be made to the construction managers, was this as a result of those discussions?
A: Correct.
Q: And it indicates that there was a transmittal check for $10 Million to Amec. Let me ask you, were similar sums transmitted to the other CMs, the other being Bovis —
A: There were three other $10 Million dollar checks.
Q: So do you

[Gina Judd]

This I found, its a court case involving a demolition company that had worked at the WTC site. This case is against the Department of Housing the construction company argues that it's pre-qualified status to work in New York should not have been revoked due to them leaving out certain details on a document that was filled out, one of the details has to do with your question Danny:
Mazzocchi did not deny before the ALJ that it had been fined for two NJDEP violations in October 2004, it only claimed that they were insignificant. Mazzocchi did not deny either that OSHA had issued violations against it in 2005. Mazzocchi claimed, however, that the information was provided as a response to DHPD's first letter of revocation. Nor did Mazzocchi deny that it was part of an investigation of the removal of steel from the World Trade Center after September 11th. Rather, it claimed that the investigation was of all contractors at the site and it did not have to report it because petitioner was found blameless. Mazzocchi did not deny that it did not disclose the NJGC investigation, but claimed instead that the investigation was a routine matter in connection with license renewal, and therefore not reportable. (See: Petition to OATH, Sullivan Letter to Agency Head dated 12/1/05). Mazzocchi never disputed whether there were violations or investigations, it only disputed whether they were of such a nature that they needed to be disclosed in the Vendex filings. Thus, any issue regarding the sufficiency of the documents filed as part of DHPD's OATH answer to prove the existence of the violations and investigations is academic.