## Effort to halt government WTC7 investigation launched

 

March 1, 2007 -- The following Request for Correction was e-mailed to
the National Institute of Standards and Technology on February 28, 2007.
It will be certified mailed on March 1, 2007. Attorney Jerry Leaphart
has informed me that he will work on the legal papers for an injunction
this weekend.

 

The subject matter within this Request for Correction and pending filing
for injunction is purposeful. The reader might be tempted to conclude
that many other contradictions found within the government investigation
of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 should have been referenced in this Request for
Correction. I can assure you that great thought went into this effort
and it mirrors the advice of counsel. What some might conclude as "too
narrow" is actually advantageous to achieving the goal -- the truth.

 Please support the Muckraker Report in this effort.

  

February 28, 2007

 

[VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL RRR]{.underline}

Chief, Management and Organization Division\
National Institute of Standards and Technology\
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 3220\
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3220\
Email: <info.quality@nist.gov>

 

Re: Requests for Correction per Section 515 of Public Law 106-554

 

**Dear Chief, Management and Organization Division**:

 

This is a matter involving the "information" that has been
"disseminated" that serves a useful purpose of making sure that the
ongoing investigation of what caused the destruction of World Trade
Center building number 7 (WTC7) complies with data and information
quality standards. For all of the reasons set forth below in conjunction
with specific requests for correction, such standards are in significant
danger of being utterly and completely violated.

This request is submitted by Edward F. Haas (requester). My address,
telephone number and email address are as set forth above. In addition,
Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart represents me in this matter. I request that
all subsequent replies be sent to both me and to my counsel whose
contact information is set forth below.

The requests for correction of information submitted hereunder are
submitted under Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.

 The particular information disseminated that is the subject of the
request consists in:

 

CORRECTION REQUEST ISSUE 1

 

The information is identified and known as \"Federal Building and Fire
Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster WTC 7 Technical
Approach and Status Summary\" and is dated as December 12, 2006.
(Information Item No. 1)

 

The source from which requester obtained the information is the NIST web
site at the following page:
<http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf>

 

Requester obtained the information from and after December 12, 2006 from
the said web page. It is understood and acknowledged that said
information has been disseminated so as to provide a status of an
ongoing investigation, and that said investigation is seriously
imperiled by the incorporation of information that requires, at a
minimum, the corrections set forth and requested hereunder.

 

Requester submits this request on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated persons. Requester is a citizen of the United States and
maintains a web site for the accurate dissemination and propagation of
governmental information. Requester's business is in the nature of a
research and journalistic organization that has succeeded in providing
citizens of the United States with timely information concerning the
function and the operation of various governmental agencies that are
charged by their enabling legislation, rules and regulations of
conducting certain duties in and for the public interest, of which and
about which each citizen has a vital interest.

 

As indicated, this request is to be understood as being submitted by
requester in his said capacity and either additionally or alternatively
on behalf of other similarly situated persons who are too numerous to
quantify or specifically name. Requester is adversely affected by the
ongoing threat of promulgation of information that is in need of
correction because the present course of action may result in the
further concealment of serious wrongdoing.

 

Specifically, Information Item No. 1 fails to comply with applicable
information quality guidelines and standards in a number of particular
ways, including, but not limited to inclusion of the following
demonstrably false statement found at page 11 of Information Item No. 1:

**"NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse
of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether
hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the
collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled
demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitude of hypothetical blast
scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more
critical elements as a result of blast."** (Bold emphasis added)

Requester asserts that the quoted information is demonstrably false and
misleading and must be corrected, together with other information that,
at present, also contains false and misleading statements. Said
information is false in and as a result of the following particulars:

NIST's NCSTSAR 1 report, issued in or about the month of October 2005,
contains the following statement that must be deemed applicable to the
ongoing investigation of what caused the 6.6-second destruction of WTC
building 7 and to Information Item No. 1:

**"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses
suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled
demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."**
(Bold emphasis added)

 

It is to be noted that NCSTAR 1 repeats the above quoted phrase in no
fewer than three widely separated passages of that document; namely: pgs
xxxvii, 146, and 176, respectively.

 

Separate and apart from an analysis of the context in which the quoted
statement is to be found, there exists a profound difference between the
quoted statement and the statement that is now found in connection with
the ongoing work of determining what caused the symmetrical, 6.6 second
destruction of WTC 7 and quoted above; namely, the quoted statement from
page 11 of Information Item No. 1 that completely contradicts the quoted
portion of NCSTAR 1. For purposes of clarity and ease of comparison the
two different and mutually contradictory statements are set forth below,
one right after the other:

 

Pg. xxxvii of NCSTAR 1 states:

 

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses
suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled
demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

 

But, Pg. 11 of \"Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the
World Trade Center Disaster WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary"
of December 12, 2006 states, in specifically relevant part:

 

"While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition
event..."

 

It is seen, therefore, that NIST is making a decidedly different claim
now where the previously published concept of no "corroborating
evidence" of a certain, specifically limited type of controlled
demolition; namely, a controlled demolition brought about by a highly
specific factual subset -- explosives planted prior to September 11,
2001 -- has been morphed, changed and broadened far beyond what NIST
previously said lacked corroboration into a blanket statement that NIST
has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event.

 

That statement is false and must be corrected.

 

The distinctions here articulated are significant and substantial. They
make a difference.

 

The statement "corroborating evidence," by definition, indicates there
was some evidence of controlled demolition as, indeed, the \<10-second,
complete, total annihilation of the two WTC towers is, in and of itself,
evidence of controlled demolition. Indeed, NIST, in articulating the
lack of "corroborating evidence" also contributed to the present need
for correction because, to requester's knowledge, NIST does not reveal
the details regarding what evidence there was that was not
"corroborated".

 

NIST, then, should correct NCSTAR 1 by articulating what evidence it had
that it could not corroborate.

 

Thus, this request for correction should be understood to entail,
contain and include a request for correction of NCSTAR 1 in conjunction
with and as a necessary adjunct to the correction of Information Item
No. 1 that pertains to the ongoing investigation of the destruction of
WTC 7.

 

NIST has also plainly acknowledged that it did not investigate what it
defined as the "event of collapse" as is plainly admitted in footnote 2
of the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1 where the following quotation is to
be found:

 

**\"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from
the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each
tower.  For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the
\"probable collapse sequence,\" although it does not actually include
the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse
initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.\"  \[See NCSTAR
1, pgs xxxvii, footnote 2 and/or 82, footnote 13\]** (Bold emphasis
added)

 

Thus, it is quite clear that had NIST claimed there was "no evidence" of
controlled demolition of the WTC towers, NCSTAR 1 would have been
criminally fraudulent on its face had it attempted, on one hand, to
acknowledge no investigation was done of what occurred during the actual
destruction phase of the buildings and then claimed, on the other, that
it lacked evidence of what it did not investigate.

 

Indeed, one reason why NIST could not "corroborate" evidence of
controlled demolition is that it did not look for it. This is something
that NIST must now specifically acknowledge so as not to continue
misleading the public.

 

Accordingly, let this request for correction also serve to place NIST on
notice that any further refusal by NIST to acknowledge that it cannot
rule out the possibility of controlled demolition or otherwise state
that it has found no evidence of controlled demolition in a context that
suggests that it had looked for and did not find such evidence may be
considered as indicative of fraud and of deception.

 

NIST cannot now state it has found no evidence of controlled demolition
because that is decidedly not what it previously stated; and, in any
event, having not looked for such evidence in the time and place where
it might have been found, NIST must further correct the record.

 

In furtherance of the burden of proof that I, the affected person, have
in this correction request, I hereby state that the ordinary meaning of
the words and the phrase "corroborating evidence" as taken from the
[American Heritage
Dictionary](http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html) where the
entry for corroborating states, and I quote: **cor·rob·o·rate** tr.v.
**cor·rob·o·rat·ed, cor·rob·o·rat·ing, cor·rob·o·rates**: To strength or
support with other evidence, make more certain. *See Synonyms* at
*confirm*.

 

Strengthen and support with other evidence. NIST cannot continue on its
present fraudulent path. It is fraud to now say there was no evidence of
controlled demolition when NIST previously stated something entirely
different.

 

This conflict in publicly disseminated information compels NIST to issue
a correction forthwith.

 

In its investigation of the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2, NIST failed to
explore a controlled demolition hypothesis. Presumably, NIST did not
pursue a controlled demolition hypothesis during its WTC1 and WTC2
investigation because it maintained that it had found no corroborating
evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event. However, NIST claims
that it is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have
played a role in initiating the destruction of WTC7. This is suspect and
demands correction. In regard to the WTC7 investigation NIST maintains:

 

*While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition
event, NIST will estimate the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios
that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical
elements as a result of blast.*

 

In order to do that, NIST will have to revisit NCSTAR 1 and undertake an
analysis of what happened during the 10-second destruction of the twin
towers, something it did not previously do. It cannot reasonably set up
hypothetical blast scenarios that disregard what actually happened.

 

This, then, takes us into a second request for correction, as follows.

 

CORRECTION REQUEST ISSUE 2

 

The particular information disseminated that is the subject of this
request consists in:

 

That certain information disseminated as solicitation number
SB1341-06-Q-0186, which resulted in the issuance of a fixed price
purchase order awarded by the federal government to Applied Research
Associates, Inc. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico in or about March,
2006. (Information Item No. 2)

 

The source from which requester obtained the information is the NIST web
site at the following page: <http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/>

 

Requester obtained the information from and after December 12, 2006 from
the said web page. It is understood and acknowledged that said
information has been disseminated so as to comply with a requirement
that contracts awarded to third party contractors may be known to the
public and for other reasons, including, by way of example, the ability
to request corrections.

 

Requester submits this request on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated persons. Requester is a citizen of the United States and
maintains a web site for the accurate dissemination and propagation of
governmental information. Requester's business is in the nature of a
research and journalistic organization that has succeeded in providing
citizens of the United States with timely information concerning the
function and the operation of various governmental agencies that are
charged by their enabling legislation, rules and regulations of
conducting certain duties in and for the public interest, of which and
about which each citizen has a vital interest.

 

As indicated, this request is to be understood as being submitted by
requester in his said capacity and either additionally or alternatively
on behalf of other similarly situated persons who are too numerous to
quantify or specifically name. Requester is adversely affected by the
ongoing threat of promulgation of information that is in need of
correction because the present course of action may result in the
further concealment of serious wrongdoing.

 

Specifically, Information Item No. 2 fails to comply with applicable
information quality guidelines and standards in a number of particular
ways, including, but not limited to the fact that an inherent and
definite conflict of interest arises as a result of the scope of work
set out in Information Item No. 2.

 

The investigation of what caused the destruction of WTC7 has been
compromised by the conclusions reached by NIST in its WTC1 and WTC2
investigation conclusions that indicated, as quoted above, and as
summarized here, that evidence of controlled demolition could not be
corroborated.

 

A controlled demolition conclusion at WTC7 would indeed challenge the
integrity of the WTC1 / WTC2 collapse sequence report. The fact that
many of the same scientists, experts, subcontractors, and associates
responsible for the WTC1 / WTC2 conclusions are now working on the WTC7
investigation creates a conflict of interest concern because of inherent
pressure to conform the outcome of the investigation of what caused the
destruction of WTC 7 to that which they indicated caused the
"initiation" of (but not actual destruction of) destruction of WTC
1,2\...

 

In solicitation number SB1341-06-Q-0186 to Applied Research Associates,
Inc. it states:

 

*Research involving human subjects is not permitted under this award
unless expressly authorized by in writing by the NIST Contracting
Officer.*

* *

Under GSA Contract number GS23F0278M, NIST Order No. SB1341-06-8-0539,
as a firm fixed price effort, has been awarded to APPLIED RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to append the
following tasks to the original contract awarded on March 31, 2006
(SB1341-06-Q-0186). Under the appended tasks, the ARA (1) shall conduct
analyses of impact damage and fire effects to provide candidate
initiating events, which may lead to structural failures and global
collapse, and (2) shall determine if there is any scenario of a
hypothetical blast event or events that could have occurred in WTC 7 on
September 11, 2001.

 

This study will reportedly be managed from the Silicon Valley Office of
ARA that specializes in finite element analysis and nonlinear structural
dynamics under blast and impact loading, impact and penetration
mechanics, failure analysis, and blast effects and the analysis of
progressive collapse in buildings. ARA is partnering with Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH) of Waltham, Massachusetts, to conduct the
appended tasks, and with Loizeaux Group International (LGI), the
consulting services branch of Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI)
of Phoenix, Maryland.

 

SGH is an engineering firm that specializes in design, investigation and
retrofit of buildings and structures of all types. SGH has expertise in
building structures, materials, and investigations and conducted the
thermal-structural response analyses of each WTC tower, as part of their
contract for the WTC towers investigation.

 

Loizeaux Group International (LGI) has expertise in a wide range of
demolition, explosion and explosives-associated technology. This
includes explosive processes and their direct and collateral effects of
blast and resulting vibration, projectiles, and overpressure. They have
conducted investigations involving commercial explosives, terrorist
devices, commercial gas, and industrial accidents involving dusts, hot
metals, and combustion processes.

 

The fact that ARA, SGH, and LGI are prohibited from interviewing human
subjects unless expressly authorized in writing by the NIST Contracting
Officer calls into question the quality, utility, objectivity,
integrity, and transparency of the hypothetical blast scenario research.
Indeed, much of the anecdotal information available to me confirms that
there are both eyewitnesses to controlled demolition, consisting in
people who have made public statements that they either heard and saw
explosions and/or heard countdowns and then saw a destruction event that
looked, well, controlled. Furthermore, more recently, evidence of
controlled demolition has been made public consisting in video footage
indicating a major news source, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC),
aired a claim that WTC7 had "collapsed" several minutes before it
actually did. Indeed, some video indicates a verbal claim of collapse
with the building still standing in the background.

 

It has long been known that a key person, Larry Silverstein, a principal
owner of property interests in the World Trade Center complex,
indicated, in substance that a decision was made to "pull" -- that is --
demolish WTC 7.

 

That key investigators cannot interview such persons, without going
through administrative hoops is absurd. Moreover, in at least one of
these instances, advance knowledge that WTC 7 was to be demolished might
well lead to criminal charges. NIST contractors such as ARA, SGH, and
LGI are not qualified to conduct criminal investigations or criminal
interviews or criminal interrogations.

 

Thus, not only is there an inherent conflict of interest in that some or
all of these same parties were involved in the investigation of WTC1 and
WTC2 that could not find "corroborating evidence" of controlled
demolition, thus preordaining the same outcome for the WTC7
investigation, there is the possibility these contractors could taint a
criminal investigation.

 

There is yet another problem.

 

Any evidence of a controlled demolition might, conceivably implicate one
or more of the sub-contractors because some of them are entities that
have expertise in controlled demolitions. For example, let us consider
Controlled Demolition Inc., or one or more of its employees, past and
present, and its subcontractors. The universe of individuals having the
capability to carryout controlled demolition work is somewhat limited.
Such skills are not generally found among the general population.

 

The range of people who could carryout such demolitions are necessarily
limited. Upon information and belief, CDI carries out more than 70% of
all controlled demolitions conducted in the US.

 

It stands to reason that past and present employees of CDI could be
parties of interest to any criminal investigator investigating a
controlled demolition event at WTC7 because these people clearly possess
the technical expertise to "pull" any structure by controlled
demolition.

 

I, as a requester, do not have to elaborate this issue overmuch. The
potential conflict is clear and apparent and cries out for correction.

 

To continue to allow a hypothetical blast event investigation within the
WTC7 investigation, done by the current crop of subcontractors
demonstrates a lack of quality, utility, objectivity, integrity, and
transparency within the investigation that is clear, apparent and
incontrovertible.

 

NIST, ARA, SGH, and LGI, the consulting branch of CDI, are not qualified
to conduct a proper investigation of whether or not a controlled
demolition of WTC7 occurred. The fact that ARA, SGH, and LGI are
prohibited from interviewing human subjects unless expressly authorized
in writing by the NIST Contracting Officer calls into question the
quality, utility, objectivity, integrity, and transparency of the
hypothetical blast scenario research in its own right. Moreover, even if
they were allowed to do so, or granted permission to do so, another
confounding variable exists because those parties should not be
permitted to taint a possible criminal investigation.

 

ARA, SGH, and LGI are not qualified to conduct criminal investigations
or criminal interviews or criminal interrogations. Controlled Demolition
Inc., its employees past and present, and its subcontractors would be a
parties of interest to any criminal investigator investigating a
controlled demolition event at WTC7 because these people clearly possess
the technical expertise to "pull" any structure by controlled
demolition. From a criminal investigation standpoint, CDI would have to
be cleared of suspicion prior to being solicited to assist in the
investigation.

 

NIST, ARA, SGH, and LGI must cease their hypothetical blast scenario
investigation forthwith because continuing with it is hopelessly
tainted, compromised and damaged, and NIST must acknowledge as much.

 

By copy of this Correction Request to my counsel, Jerry V. Leaphart of
Jerry V. Leaphart and Associates, P.C., I hereby request that he file
for an injunction preventing NIST from going forward with any further
issuance of any report on what caused the 6.6 second destruction of WTC
7 pending the resolution of this Correction Request.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Haas

Cc

Jerry V. Leaphart\
8 West Street\
Suite 203\
Danbury, CT 06810