Protecting the public from information

Dwain Deets

North County Times, 8/3/2010, http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_c765f5c3-3822-5a36-9a7a-80ecd5cb4b33.html

We have a federal agency showing disdain for the Freedom of Information Act. Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Director of National Institute for Standards and Technology, denied a request from structural engineer Ronald Brookman, who sought detailed structural analysis information gathered by NIST when they determined the cause of the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse. Gallagher's stated reason for denial was that releasing it "might jeopardize public safety."

What might jeopardize public safety is not allowing professionals in the building industry such as Mr. Brookman to independently study the NIST analysis of the highly anomalous building failure. A 47-story high-rise suddenly collapses straight down into its own footprint — highly anomalous.

President Obama embraced transparency and openness in government on Day One of his new administration. Gallagher issued this determination on July 9, 2009, more than five months later — the exact opposite of openness in government. What is the public to make of this?

And where is our Congress? Not one member of Congress has raised a single word of concern. Does Congress no longer have oversight responsibility? Are you OK with the authorities thumbing their noses at you?

Dwain Deets

Encinitas

Can more than 1,000 architects and engineers be wrong?

Dwain Deets

North County Times, 4/6/2010, http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_893b5e84-4a8d-5383-82f7-3d3714c03756.html

The Freedom of Information Act used to be key to transparency in government. Not any more — at least, not if you ask about Building 7, a 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper that came crashing down on Sept. 11.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology investigated the collapse of Building 7 and issued their final report. They took a very unusual approach. Rather than examining remnants from the destroyed building, they developed a computer model that they claimed represented the building's characteristics. They theorized what might have been the cause for the collapse, then ran their computer model and claimed it represented what had actually happened. NIST states office fires alone led to the collapse of the building.

Now, more than 1,000 architects and engineers are asking for a new investigation. They say this defies the laws of physics. They ask for information on the computer model. Was it an accurate representation of the building itself?

Attempts to use FOIA to get information on the model have been futile. NIST refuses to provide critical information, saying, "release of the information may endanger public safety."

What? Endanger public safety? FOIA requests shouldn't be refused for such outlandish reasons.

Dwain Deets

Encinitas

Public safety paradox

http://www.seaonc.org/pdfs/SEAONC_September_2010.pdf

September 2010

Dear Editor:

The complete collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was highly anomalous—that's why it is critical for building design and construction professionals to understand it. Freedom of Information Act requests for structural-analysis data have been denied because the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Director determined that release of the data might jeopardize public safety. I asked the Director:

How, in the Director's judgment, is the release of calculations and analysis results—developed at the taxpayers' expense for a building that no longer exists—a threat to public safety?

His response was:

The decision to withhold the data was based on the fact that the capabilities of the WTC 7 collapse initiation and global collapse models are unprecedented, in that they provide validated models that can predict collapse of typical tall buildings. If released, these models would provide a powerful tool to groups and individuals interested in simulating building collapses and devising ways to destroy buildings.

This response from NIST is an insult to building design and construction professionals who are committed to ensuring public safety with high-quality construction. As a structural engineer I have a professional interest in understanding the collapse, and it has nothing to do with ''devising ways to destroy buildings." If the WTC 7 models actually predict the complete collapse of typical tall buildings subjected to office fires, then withholding this information is not in the interest of public safety.

Independent verification is an integral part of science, so I strongly encourage the NIST Director to reconsider his decision to withhold analysis data. Only independent verification will enable these complex models to be validated.

Sincerely,

Ronald H. Brookman, SE

Victims families and scientists call for new, genuine investigation of 9/11

Peace Arch News, http://www.bclocalnews.com, 9/8/2010

My name is Kip Warner and I am a 27-year old White Rock [British Columbia, Canada] based, software engineer, and entrepreneur. I write in regards to a matter of dire import, in honour of those who died on September 11th, 2001, and in support of their families who are still seeking the truth about that day; including Bob McIlvaine, who lost his 26-year old son, Bobby.

On March 1, 2010, Mr. McIlvaine delivered a petition to each of the 50 members of the New York City Council on behalf of 1,000 architects and engineers. The petition called upon the City Council to open an investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane, which nevertheless fell into its own footprint at 5:20 in the afternoon of September 11th. The federal government said that fire brought down Building 7, however, [more than] 1,277 architects and engineers provide us with overwhelming evidence that Building 7 was brought down with explosives, and that the government deliberately lied to us.

Scientists from the University of Copenhagen, UC Berkeley, and others noted in their groundbreaking paper, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, the presence of “red/gray chips” in all samples of the dust collected in the aftermath of the collapse, collected from multiple locations, by different individuals, both before and after first responders arrived on scene. They end their 25 page, peer-reviewed, chemical analysis published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, with the following: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips...is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material,” (p.23).

The government of the United State's report on Building 7 included collapse models that in no way resemble the actual collapse. Even today, the government refuses to provide the public with detailed information on these models, saying releasing the information “may jeopardize public safety.” The government’s models show deformations, walls folding inwards and an asymmetrical collapse, instead of the smooth, symmetrical free fall drop that Building 7 actually underwent. Google “Building 7” to see footage.

Our organization's lawyers forced NIST to release the model, but NIST withheld 75% of the files under a technicality a new law which says they can withhold anything to do with 9/11 if they deem it necessary.

My father, a professional mechanical engineer of 33 years experience and a successful business owner who provided the fabric structures at ground zero, confirmed this after a doctoral engineer working for his company examined the official NIST data that was released. He believes that the model, analysis, and conclusions of the 911 Commission Report and the technical data upon which it is based are deeply flawed. It appears as though NIST attempted to adjust the model and beam connection details in order to get the model to collapse the way WTC7 actually collapsed.

This was the first time in history that any concrete and steel sky scraper structure had collapsed due to fire, let alone three of them - all on the same day.

A report on a 2001 conference suggests who was working on nano-thermite at this time - not to be confused with regular thermite. “All of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nano-materials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives...nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management,” (Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48).

Noam Chomsky once noted a powerful means of presenting the people with the illusion of freedom is to set very narrow parameters for acceptable opinion, then allow for lively debate within that spectrum. Given this powerful new damning evidence, we now know that this was neither “blowback” (“far left”), nor an expression of an irate theology thought to be defective by design (“far right”). Everything from issues surrounding airport security, extremism, Guantanamo Bay, all the way to the justification of the deployment of Canadian troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that 24 Canadians were killed on 9/11; and our very own National Research Council who set our building codes, must now be re-evaluated rationally as this elaborate house of cards comes down - given the scope of these evidentially based ramifications. We must now be prepared to seriously question the official conspiracy theory's premise that men in caves conspired to take down NORAD, attack the most well defended fortification in the world, and pulverize thousands of tonnes of the World Trade Center complex's concrete and steel to talcum powder. We've been living a lie.

As we mark the 9th anniversary of 9/11, it is time to get the truth about what happened, starting with Building 7. To quote Bob McIlvaine: “Please join our coordinated effort to bring justice to my son and the thousands that were murdered on September 11th.” Go to BuildingWhat.org to learn more.

In closing, all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.


Kip Warner
Software Engineer