Contradictions run rampant in NIST “Request for Correction” response letter

 

August 25, 2007 – The Muckraker Report issued a “Request for Correction” letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on February 28, 2007 regarding the ongoing investigation into how World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC7) collapsed.  I encourage everyone to read the initiating request before studying the NIST response letter posted below.  

 

The Muckraker Report intends to produce an in depth analysis of the insufficient NIST response in the coming days and is also considering an appeal.  It should be noted that it took the government 6 months to respond to our “Request for Correction” yet the people are only given 30 days to appeal. 

 

As many of our readers are aware, Attorney Jerry Leaphart has filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief in United States District Court Southern District of New York on my behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated.  The purpose of both the Request for Correction and this legal action is to stop the direction the government is heading regarding its final report on how World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001. 

 

Attorney Jerry Leaphart is also seeking a temporary injunction from the court.  However, before a judge grants such an injunction, the plaintiff must demonstrate what is called “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy”.  I spoke with Attorney Leaphart today and he assured me that the NIST response letter found below brings us one step closer to being able to demonstrate to a federal judge that satisfactory administrative remedy has been sought, but has failed to be achieved. 

 

Two important points are revealed in the NIST letter that must be widely discussed.  First, with approximately two weeks separating us from the sixth anniversary of 9/11, the government admits that it is not yet understood what the initiating event was in WTC7 that led to the collapse.  This is a clear contradiction when weighed against the rhetoric that WTC7 was more severely damaged by falling debris then the skeptics acknowledge.  Clearly, NIST suggests in its letter that the damage was not severe enough to fall into the category or initiating event.  That also means that the fires in the building were not either. 

 

Second, NIST admits that it is not authorized to conduct criminal investigations and neither are the NIST subcontractors.  Therefore, no criminal investigation has been conducted regarding purposefully positioned cutter charges or explosives.  NIST, in circular fashion, attempts to make the point that a hypothetical blast scenario would not necessarily have to be criminal, but what if it was, and therefore qualifies NIST to proceed with its hypothetical blast scenarios. This logic is both lame and blind, and should be rejected by anybody with any sense. 

 

I encourage everyone to e-mail me his or her observations regarding the NIST response letter.  There is a lot to rebut in the government response.  Your comments and feedback will be greatly appreciated!  Please share this link with your readers, associates, and friends.  You can support this effort by donating to the Muckraker Report or buying one of our awesome “Get Mucked” t-shirts!  Thanks.