| -Caveat Lector-
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 3:48 PM
Subject: November 22 NIST Meeting
For Immediate
Release:
11/12/04
Below is a letter which was sent on behalf
of Skyscraper Safety Campaign (SSC) to the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) today. This also relates to an article that appeared in
11/12/04 edition of the NY Times (Unit Plans Closed Hearings on Collapse of the
Towers By Jim Dwyer).
The NIST investigation into the collapse of the WTC
was initiated two years ago in large part due to the efforts of the family
members and others who comprise the Skyscraper Safety Campaign (SSC). The SSC
has been monitoring this investigation since its inception. The purpose of
this investigation was to find out how and why the WTC collapsed. The mandate
was to uncover the deadly mistakes, initiate change and create true reform to
building codes, building practices, evacuation techniques, and emergency
response protocols.
As the NIST Investigation draws to an end, there is
great concern that the public be aware of the facts and the process by which
preliminary conclusions will be determined. There is also great concern that
outside experts and theorists have the opportunity to present information and to
be acknowledged. Finally, we are concerned that so much of the testimony and
evidence remains secret, thus preventing other professionals and the public from
being fully informed regarding the collapse of the WTC and the needless deaths
of 2,700 human souls, including our dear loved ones.
Skyscraper Safety
Campaign
Sally Regenhard 718-671-7326
Monica Gabrielle
917-923-0556 (cell)
######
NIST
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 3460
Gaithersburg,
MD 20899-3460
ATT: Arden L. Bement, Jr.,
Director
Hratch
G. Semerjian, Acting Director
James Hill
Shyam
Sunder
Matthew
Heyman, Chief of Staff
Michael
Rubin, NIST Counsel
Dear
Gentlemen:
9/11 Families, members of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign (SSC)
and their technical advisers are increasingly frustrated at the way NIST is
conducting the ongoing World Trade Center Investigation.
As of this
week, NIST has announced that the key discussion in the upcoming NIST Federal
Advisory meeting -- which is the debate on the building safety code change
recommendations NIST is mandated to develop -- will be closed to the public.
We believe that this decision by NIST reflects bad judgment and is
possibly in violation of the Open Meetings Law.
A decision by NIST to
hold meetings in secrecy only breeds public distrust and mistrust. Whenever NIST
holds a meeting, the presumption should be that the meeting is open to the
public. Whenever NIST wants to have closed meetings, it should demonstrate the
necessity for closing them. In SSC's opinion, NIST has not met this
standard.
This is not what the SSC fought so hard for. The
transparency of this investigation was and is of the utmost concern to the SSC
and its supporters, including members of Congress.
On the second day of
the last World Trade Center Investigation Federal Advisory meeting on October
19-20, 2004, there was a unanimous vote by all the Federal Advisers
present to keep the next meeting, scheduled for November 22, open. The
clear intent was to keep the discussion of building safety recommendations open
to include public involvement. Even NIST attorney, Michael Rubin, stated that he
could see no reason that such a discussion would legally qualify for closure.
He mentioned two issues that could necessitate closure of such a meeting:
national security concerns and commercial confidentiality. Neither, Mr.
Rubin stated, appeared to apply in this case.
The SSC totally rejects the
notion that the discussion of possible recommendations needs to be closed to the
public. Indeed, we see compelling legal and moral grounds as to why this
meeting should remain open. The reason given (see [*] below) for closing this
meeting is nothing more than a reiteration of the guarantees NIST is already
assured of under its legislation.
If NIST is precluded by this very same
legislation from having their work product used as part of any litigation, why
is it cited as a reason to close the meeting? What logic is there to
protecting proprietary information for buildings and businesses that no longer
exist? What argument can be made regarding any concern about
recommendations, which pertain to code changes in regard to either the former or
new WTC, as they were and still are exempt from compliance?
Another
concern of the SSC is that at the Oct 19-20 meeting, the SSC presented several
position papers to the Federal Advisory Committee and to NIST officials for
consideration. These papers were written in response to work completed by
NIST to that date. What procedure is in place to accept such information to be
reviewed by NIST and its Federal Advisory Committee? What response and
documentation can be expected from both NIST and the Federal Advisory Committee
regarding the issues raised by the SSC advisors as reflected in these and other
papers?
In addition, as observed in the last meeting, there was genuine
surprise and differences of opinion expressed by some members of the Federal
Advisory Committee regarding some preliminary findings of NIST, especially
regarding the fireproofing and building design, etc. What will be
the follow up to these differences of opinions? What procedure/formalized system
has been put in place to acknowledge outside opinions of other professionals,
and how will they be debated?
To date, far too much of this
investigation has not been transparent, and far too few of the questions or
issues raised by SSC and its technical advisers have been addressed. Far
too many of the basic questions surrounding these buildings and their collapse
have not been raised, let alone answered. One of the most obvious questions
missing from the WTC investigation thus far is the role that Port Authority
exemptions and immunities played in the design, construction, safety maintenance
and eventual collapse of these buildings. No discussion of codes and code
compliance can be made without thoroughly evaluating this most important
component.
In a telephone conversation earlier this week with NIST staff,
we were told that NIST would close the meeting because of concerns
about jurisdictions jumping the gun and implementing recommendations that are
still under debate. We feel that this is absurd. Opening the meeting
will allow these jurisdictions to hear the debate and the reasons why something
should or should not be included, a much more useful approach. This is a
technical investigation - one in which the greatest amount of public
scrutiny should be applied.
The SSC adamantly
opposes the closing of the November 22 World Trade Center Federal Advisory
meeting. More than 2700 innocent people died on 9/11. The NIST
investigation was established on the basis that there were deadly mistakes made
in the WTC and changes can be made that will help protect the public in the
future. We are steadfast in our belief that the public should have access
to the process by which such critical recommendations are developed.
In conclusion, the SSC strongly believes that the November 22
meeting should be open to the public. NIST and the American public lose
when NIST decides to close its meetings.
Sincerely,
Sally
Regenhard, Chairperson
Monica Gabrielle,
Co-Chairperson
*The Assistant Secretary for
Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined
on November 1, 2004, that portions of the meeting that involve discussions
regarding the proprietary information of third parties, data and documents that
may also be used in criminal cases or lawsuits, matters the premature disclosure
of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed
agency action, and data collection status and the issuance of subpoenas may be
closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (5), (9)(B), and
(10).
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
|
