The Probable Collapse Sequence of NIST

 

July 4, 2007 – A Request for Correction was e-mailed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology on February 28, 2007.  It was certified mailed on March 1, 2007.  NIST employee Gwenda Roberson signed it for on March 5, 2007 – 4 months ago.  

 

In this Request for Correction, the Muckraker Report assisted by Attorney Jerry Leaphart, challenged NIST on numerous issues that are believed to be major obstructions standing in the way of the government issuing an independent, non-biased, truthful report on how WTC7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.  NIST has yet to offer a response to the issues and concerns articulated in the Request for Correction.  Instead, NIST continues to search for ways to avoid transparency and therefore truthfulness. 

 

On June 15, 2007 I sent via e-mail to Catherine S. Fletcher, NIST Chief of Management and Organization, an inquiry regarding the status of the NIST response to my Request for Correction.  Fletcher responded as follows:

 

Dear Mr. Haas,

 

Your request for correction of information under the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Guidelines for Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public dated February 28, 2007, is still under review.  While our goal is to respond within 60 days to such requests, due to the complexity of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation, we are unable to do so in this case.  We anticipate that a response providing the Agency’s views will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. 

 

Thank you for your interest in the quality of information disseminated by NIST.  Should you have any questions, please contact me at info.quality@nist.gov.

 

Sincerely,

 

Catherine S. Fletcher

 

Nearly six years after its collapse, the public has yet to be told how a 47-story building that was not struck by an airplane, that had only marginal fires burning in it between the 6^th and 13^th floor, that experienced significantly less damage than WTC5 and WTC6 from falling debris that resulted when the twin towers collapsed, nearly six years later and NIST still cannot explain in any believable terminology how or why this building collapsed.  Fletcher refers to the complexity – tangled webs would have been a more forthcoming choice of words.  At this point, only efforts to distract and deceive can explain this lack of final conclusions.  

 

For those dedicated to discovering the truth, the Muckraker Report recommends that instead of only pointing to the obvious attempt to mislead the public – each of us take action to find the policies, procedures, rules, laws, guidelines, and mandates within the corrupt apparatus that is the federal government that we can now employ to stop this investigation dead in its tracks and re-direct it.  We all know the government has not told us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about 9/11 and we are certain that it is prepared to attempt to deceive us to some degree about WTC7 if we allow it.  Do not allow it!  Use every tool available to you to step in between the government and this investigation.  It does nobody any good whatsoever to allow this investigation to continue on its present course.  To do so will only produce another worthless report for those of us that cherish the truth as virtuous regardless of its pain to commiserate over together – changing nothing.  If allowed to be issued, the report will stand.  It must be stopped and redirected into a truly independent and non-biased investigative forum. 

 

In 2006, NIST indicated that its final report on how WTC7 collapsed would be issued in Spring 2007.  On May 7, 2007, a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief was filed in federal court.  On June 29, 2007, NIST issued a press release announcing that its final report on the collapse of WTC7 would be issued by the end of the year.  Attorney Jerry Leaphart is preparing a request for temporary injunctive and declaratory relief.  It must be pointed out that Jerry Leaphart is doing this legal work pro bono for the Muckraker Report.  We simply do not have the resources to pursue this legal manner otherwise.  Attorney Leaphart has his normal caseload to contend with in addition to pursuing this injunction.  I mention this only because some readers have inquired about updates and status of the legal proceedings.  It’s a prayer and a shoestring folks – but we fight on.  

 

In the meanwhile, I issued the Freedom of Information Request found below, to NIST today.  I will persist to do everything in my power to break up the ring of contractors and sub-contractors responsible for the conclusions reached regarding the collapse of the twin towers – to prevent them from continuing their work on the WTC7 investigation because it is a clear conflict of interest and they know it.  They know it would be impossible for them to reach a controlled demolition or initiating blast conclusion regarding the collapse of WTC7 because such a conclusion would call into question their findings on WTC1 and WTC2.  This is a clear conflict of interest.  Period.  You will note in the FOIA that each contractor and sub-contractor is contractually obligated to disclose potential and real conflicts of interests when accepting government contracts.  Anyone want to bet how many disclosure forms NIST received?  I’m banking on zero. 

 

The rule of law dictates the necessity for breech of contract investigations.  Unfortunately, un-indicted co-conspirators are found in all positions of power that could call for such investigations – but we fight on!  As legendary NC State Wolfpack basketball coach Jimmy Valvano said before he passed away, “Never give up!” 

 

Here’s the Freedom of Information Request issued today.

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Catherine S. Fletcher, FOIA & Privacy Act Officer

100 Bureau Drive, STOP 1710

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1710

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

 

July 4, 2007

 

Dear Catherine S. Fletcher,

 

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552.

 

I request that a copy of the following documents be provided to me.

 

1. Any document that demonstrates the final authority that must sign off on the final report on the probable collapse sequence of World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC7). [Comment: Clearly somebody within the government has the final approval before such a report is release for public consumption.  Likewise, such a highly charged subject matter would have prompted written procedural instruction describing in detail how such a report must be approved before released.  In short, I want documentation that clearly indicates the person[s] who will approve the release of the now grossly overdue report on the “probable” collapse sequence of WTC7.]
2. Documents that demonstrate each and every contractor and sub-contractor retained by NIST to contribute in the WTC7 collapse investigation. 
3. Copies of documentation that demonstrate all contractors and sub-contractors disclosure of actual or potential organizational conflict of interest associated with the contractors and sub-contractors involvement with the WTC7 collapse investigation. 
4. Copies of contracts between the government and all contractors and sub-contractors involved with the WTC7 investigation.
5. Copies of all contract extension requests made to NIST by all contractors and sub-contractors. 
6. Documents that demonstrate the authority granted to NIST to consider whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse of WTC7 even though NIST maintains that it “has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event.”
7. Documents that describe what controlled demolition evidence is so that NIST, contractors, and sub-contractors understand what is controlled demolition evidence and what is not. [Comment:  What criteria / guidelines is NIST relying upon when it states that it “has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event at WTC7?  What would NIST consider evidence of a controlled demolition?  As the National Institute of Standards and Technology, clearly NIST should have documents that set the standard of what is controlled demolition evidence and what is not.] 
8. Documents that demonstrate the authorization granted to NIST to conduct a criminal investigation.

 

I am a representative of the news media affiliated with the Muckraker Report.  The Muckraker Report publishes and disseminates information, and this request is made as part of news gathering and is not for commercial use. 

 

I request a waiver of all fees for this request.  Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. 

 

Thank you,

 

 

Ed Haas, Editor

Muckraker Report