Administrative remedy with NIST denied

 

September 14, 2007 – A conflict of interest is defined as a real or potential conflict between private / professional / political interests and official responsibilities of a government employee, government agency, and / or sub-contractors under government contract that occurs when a situation arises in which there is a divergence between personal, professional, or political interests and the obligations to the public, such that an impartial observer might reasonably question whether the actions and decisions, or lack of actions and decisions, taken by the government employee, government agency, and / or sub-contractors under government contract related to the situation would be influenced by consideration of the government employees’, government agencies’, and / or sub-contractors’ private, professional, or political interests. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), along with its sub-contractors working on the technical investigation to determine how World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC7) collapsed, has an undeniable, clearly definable, conflict of interest.  This conflict of interest places NIST in violation of the Data Quality Act. 

 

On February 28, 2007, a Request for Correction per Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 was issued to NIST.  Among other items, within this Request for Correction is found the assertion that NIST and its sub-contractors responsible for the probable collapse sequence conclusions reached regarding WTC1 and WTC2 have a conflict of interest concern because of inherent pressure to conform the outcome of the investigation into what caused the complete destruction of WTC7 to that which they indicated caused the “initiation” of (but not actual destruction of) WTC1 and WTC2. 

 

In layman terms: the assertion made in the Request for Correction is that a government employee, government agency, and / or sub-contractors under government contract to investigate how and why WTC7 collapsed on September 11, 2001 have a real or potential conflict between private / professional / political interests and official responsibilities.  Any final report on the collapse of WTC7 that even remotely contradicts the final report already issued on WTC1 and WTC2 would have a grave impact on the private and professional interests of the sub-contractors as well as an arguably unfavorable private, professional, and political impact on the government employees working at NIST as well as the Department of Commerce. 

 

In its response to the Request for Correction, NIST maintains that its work on WTC7 will not be influenced by the work already completed on WTC1 and WTC2.  NIST wrote, “The fact that NIST did not find evidence of the use of explosives or controlled demolition in its investigation of the WTC Towers does not preordain the outcome of the WTC7 investigation.”  As much as NIST may wish this statement to resolve the conflict of interest clearly seen by impartial observers, absent third party, independent oversight, there remains no assurance, no independent check or balance, as to whether NIST can or will comply with the Data Quality Act when issuing its final report on the WTC7 collapse.

 

If you question the argument of conflict of interest, you must bring the debate to a final conclusion.  What would happen tomorrow if the headlines in every newspaper around the world read: WTC7 brought down by controlled demolition!  The blowback would be fierce and furious.  Almost immediately, the logically question would be if WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, then isn’t it possible that the WTC Towers could have been also?  Only the desperately naive cannot see how catastrophic it would be on a global scale to have such an outcome made public.  I am of the opinion that violent protest and rioting would break out across the United States and in front of every U.S. embassy around the world. 

 

To trust NIST, to believe that even though NIST did not find evidence of the use of explosives or controlled demolition in its investigation of the WTC Towers does not preordain the outcome of the WTC7 investigation, considering the enormity of consequences associated with any outcome that even remotely contradicts the WTC Towers conclusion, is blind.  The conflict of interest is a materially factual legal argument.  NIST and its sub-contractors are bound to the WTC Towers conclusion.  Arguing otherwise is illogical.  

 

Those that trust the government accounting of 9/11 might ask then, “Who should be investigating the collapse of WTC7?”  My first response is anybody other than NIST and the sub-contractors responsible for the final report on the WTC Towers.  But it goes deeper.

 

Another important element of the Request for Correction centered on the NIST usage of the terms “controlled demolition” and “hypothetical blast scenarios”.  NIST demonstrates in its response to the Request for Correction further contradiction and conflict by maintaining that it has found no evidence of controlled demolition while maintaining that under the NCST Act, NIST is not authorized to conduct criminal investigations.  How then can NIST be relied upon to determine whether there is evidence of a controlled demolition or not?  A controlled demolition of WTC7 would be a crime.  NIST admits that it is not authorized to conduct a criminal investigation.  So what authorizes NIST to determine whether it has or has not evidence of a controlled demolition?  Such determinations are beyond the scope, expertise, and authorization granted to NIST under The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act (P.L. 107-231) authorizing NIST to conduct technical investigations into the cause of building failures. 

 

A Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) was issued to NIST on July 4, 2007 requesting in part:

 

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.] 

 

As of today, NIST has failed to provide any documents that define what evidence of a controlled demolition is, or is not.  NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has no standard when it comes to controlled demolition evidence.  It’s as if it’s making its own standards and rules as it goes along.  This is a violation of the Data Quality Act because NIST is disseminating information to the public under the color of expert, credential investigation regarding “controlled demolition” of WTC complex buildings when it is not authorized or qualified to make such determinations.  Only a criminal investigation into the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 can be relied upon to make such determinations. 

 

Which brings us to a final and greater point.  NIST is conducting a technical investigation and not a criminal investigation.  NIST is not authorized to conduct a criminal investigation nor is it credentialed to conduct a criminal investigation.  What was always needed, what is still needed, is a criminal investigation of 9/11 – from prior knowledge intelligence, to the events of that day, to all that has happened since.  What has never been lacking is probable cause for such a criminal investigation – only the will and integrity of the people in government we the people have entrusted to maintain the rule of law. 

 

In its response to the Request for Correction, NIST validates the fact that a criminal investigation is necessary because NIST is not authorized or trained to recognize and respond appropriated to probable cause.  NIST writes: 

 

The collapse of WTC7 in and of itself does not present evidence of a controlled demolition event. 

 

That is absolutely true in the same way that the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11.  However, the collapse of WTC7 in and of itself does present enough probable cause to launch a criminal investigation into whether there was motive and opportunity to purposely pull that building at 5:20 EST on September 11, 2007.  NIST does not operate in the realm of probable cause – only probable collapse sequence. 

 

Another statement by NIST in its response that further demonstrates why a criminal investigation has always been necessary and how relying solely upon NIST was a waste of taxpayer dollars and a overall mistake is how NIST dismissed the statement of Larry Silverstein, a principal owner of property interests in the WTC Complex.  Silverstein indicated in substance that a decision was made to “pull” WTC7.  To many impartial observers, the term “pull” meant to demolish the building. 

 

NIST wrote:  Your further assertion that Larry Silverstein indicated that a decision was made to demolish WTC7 has been previously refuted by his spokesman on September 9, 2005 (refer to http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archieve/2005/Sep/16-241966.html).

 

It is noted that the web address NIST provided in its response is a dead link. 

 

Only the most derelict of criminal investigations would allow the statement of Larry Silverstein to be refuted by a spokesman through the State Department web site.  But NIST is comfortable relying on hearsay.  During a criminal investigation, Larry Silverstein would have been interviewed if not interrogated.  He would have been asked to submit to a lie detector test.  The profit motive – Silverstein made billions of dollars as a result of the total destruction of the WTC Complex buildings, would not have been ignored.  In short, criminal investigators fathom the unfathomable, technical investigators do not.  Silverstein’s statement is probable cause also.  So why, after six years, is there no criminal investigation?

 

A Zogby Poll conducted this month revealed that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush / Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks.  Over 66% indicate that the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of WTC7.  Think about it!  Half of Americans have their doubts about 9/11.  However, I disagree with the two-thirds that think the 9/11 Commission should have conducted an investigation into WTC7.  The 9/11 Commission was a mistake because it was not a full-fledged criminal investigation.  It was a manipulated panel of partisans with conflicted intent. 

 

So where do we go from here?  The Muckraker Report will have our day in court soon with the hope that a judge will intervene on the people’s behalf and rule that NIST clearly does have a conflict of interest that should not be left unchecked.  However, even if a judge ruled in the people’s favor, NIST still is incapable of conducting a criminal investigation – and that is the only type of investigation that is so desperately required if we are to ever gain access to the unanswered questions regarding 9/11. 

 

The 51% of Americans that want the Bush / Cheney probe could and should write their representatives in Washington DC demanding a criminal investigation – but make certain it is a criminal investigation that you are requesting. 

 

The last option is for the larger 9/11 Truth organizations to come together, form a 9/11 Criminal Investigation Fund, raise money, and hire a truly independent, credentialed, reliable and resourceful private investigative firm that will be able to achieve the license and access to conduct an unfettered criminal investigation into how WTC7 collapsed as well has how all elements of 9/11 unfolded.