The Freedom of Information Act used to be key to transparency in government. Not any more — at least, not if you ask about Building 7, a 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper that came crashing down on Sept. 11.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology investigated the collapse of Building 7 and issued their final report. They took a very unusual approach. Rather than examining remnants from the destroyed building, they developed a computer model that they claimed represented the building's characteristics. They theorized what might have been the cause for the collapse, then ran their computer model and claimed it represented what had actually happened. NIST states office fires alone led to the collapse of the building.
Now, more than 1,000 architects and engineers are asking for a new investigation. They say this defies the laws of physics. They ask for information on the computer model. Was it an accurate representation of the building itself?
Attempts to use FOIA to get information on the model have been futile. NIST refuses to provide critical information, saying, "release of the information may endanger public safety."
What? Endanger public safety? FOIA requests shouldn't be refused for such outlandish reasons.
(Note: This was published as a letter to editor in the North County Times on April 6, 2010)
Friday, April 9, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Flying Blind
(Note: written in the form of my president's message for posting on the Progressive Democrats of North San Diego County website.)
Like a hiker searching for a solid rock in the stream, Progressive Democrats of North San Diego County seem to be searching for solid footing in the political landscape. On the one hand, the two major political parties appear to be two sides to the same coin, a coin good only for maintaining the status quo. Others feel the differences between the two parties are substantial, not at all equivalent to being the same coin.
Some of us feel the solid footing is with the Democrats. Others of us feel that, if that footing is solid, it is solid only in the sense of being solidly attached to “business as usual” or the status quo.
In our general meeting of February 14, where I recounted material presented to the House of Parliament by Chris Martenson on the three E’s—Economy, Energy, and Environment, the bottom line was that the next 20 years are going to be very different from the past 20 years. If the next 20 years are going to be very different, then we have almost no past history as a guide. It almost has to be, by definition, a time of great uncertainty. In that context, we should make our best effort to become aware of and anticipate differences from the “business as usual” frame of reference that most likely will be there. We should make that the backdrop for any changes in program areas we seek to advocate.
For example, consider some of the discussion concerning the recent health care debate pertained to either potential costs or savings of various proposals. The Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) presented the savings for Single-Payer Bill, HR 676, as compared with the Reconciliation Bill passed by the House on 3/21/2010, as a YES for HR 676 savings, claiming a redirect of $400 Billion in administrative waste to care, with no net increase in health spending. This, as compared to a NO for savings with the Reconciliation Bill of 3/21, where it would increase health spending by about $1 trillion over 10 years. It has been difficult to keep track of the various savings and cost estimates, partly because secondary items get added on or deleted, making apples-to-apples comparisons challenging. The Congressional Budget Office is thought to provide a bipartisan means of assessment of the projected costs of future program options. However, does bipartisan mean the same coin? What if that “same coin” is so heavily biased towards the “business as usual” assumptions that it completely misses a future that is “completely different,” in the sense that Martenson speaks?
We are flying blind into the next 20 years. Business-as-usual methods of projecting future costs and/or savings aren’t going to keep up with the dramatically changing world of constraint. Maybe we should search for a different rock to plant our foot.
Dwain
Like a hiker searching for a solid rock in the stream, Progressive Democrats of North San Diego County seem to be searching for solid footing in the political landscape. On the one hand, the two major political parties appear to be two sides to the same coin, a coin good only for maintaining the status quo. Others feel the differences between the two parties are substantial, not at all equivalent to being the same coin.
Some of us feel the solid footing is with the Democrats. Others of us feel that, if that footing is solid, it is solid only in the sense of being solidly attached to “business as usual” or the status quo.
In our general meeting of February 14, where I recounted material presented to the House of Parliament by Chris Martenson on the three E’s—Economy, Energy, and Environment, the bottom line was that the next 20 years are going to be very different from the past 20 years. If the next 20 years are going to be very different, then we have almost no past history as a guide. It almost has to be, by definition, a time of great uncertainty. In that context, we should make our best effort to become aware of and anticipate differences from the “business as usual” frame of reference that most likely will be there. We should make that the backdrop for any changes in program areas we seek to advocate.
For example, consider some of the discussion concerning the recent health care debate pertained to either potential costs or savings of various proposals. The Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) presented the savings for Single-Payer Bill, HR 676, as compared with the Reconciliation Bill passed by the House on 3/21/2010, as a YES for HR 676 savings, claiming a redirect of $400 Billion in administrative waste to care, with no net increase in health spending. This, as compared to a NO for savings with the Reconciliation Bill of 3/21, where it would increase health spending by about $1 trillion over 10 years. It has been difficult to keep track of the various savings and cost estimates, partly because secondary items get added on or deleted, making apples-to-apples comparisons challenging. The Congressional Budget Office is thought to provide a bipartisan means of assessment of the projected costs of future program options. However, does bipartisan mean the same coin? What if that “same coin” is so heavily biased towards the “business as usual” assumptions that it completely misses a future that is “completely different,” in the sense that Martenson speaks?
We are flying blind into the next 20 years. Business-as-usual methods of projecting future costs and/or savings aren’t going to keep up with the dramatically changing world of constraint. Maybe we should search for a different rock to plant our foot.
Dwain
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Differences in views
Enjoyed meeting up with a long-time friend. We see each other 3 or 4 times a year. We of course became engrossed in talking about the economy, and what we foresaw for the future.
After considerable discussion about what the U.S. Government (as well as the non-government entity, the Federal Reserve) could or couldn’t do, it all came down to one final assumption: I thought the economy would never come back, and my friend thought it would.
His reasoning—human ingenuity would find a way, applying amazing new technology, to solve what ever problems are needed to be solved.
My reasoning—humans are unable to think long enough term, and act in a rational manner collectively, to get us out of the bind we’re in. The constraint on global resources is too hard a problem to solve.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Picking up after a long hiatus
It has been over 2 years since I wrote my first blog entry, and until today, my last. What a lot has happened in that short time. I want to bring up just one:
December 2006 is about the first time I heard of Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). He just had started the organization a few months before then.
Today, he has been the guest speaker over 80 times before audiences throughout the US, and internationally, explaining the latest of what is known about the destructions of the three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. The amount of new material in this 2-year period is breathtaking. Yet, not a word of it is covered by the mainstream media.
Many people think the particulars about and reasons for the 9/11 attacks were decided long ago. Not so. I have been urged by many to move on from this topic--get a life. But, if anything, I am devoting more and more time to the questions of what really did happen on 9/11, and how to best communicate about them to the public at large.
The latest ground breaking development is the publication in a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal on the discovery of an unignited nano-thermite material in the dust from the WTC. The fact that it is an exotic nano-thermite means it had to have come from a high-tech laboratory. It could have been designed for use as either a highly energetic explosive or pyrotechnic material.
On its face, the implications of this are staggering. I find even more troubling that the mainstream media and apparently the government is avoiding the topic all together.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Starting to chip away
This is me exploring this new domain. A place to blog.
Here's some recent happenings on my favorite topics:
1. I just read an outstanding article in New Yorker by Calvin Trillin about his late wife, Alice. She was a giving, a caring person unlike probably anyone you've heard of before. As a very minor comment late in the article, Calvin said she had absolutely no interest in religion.
2. Two factions have developed within Scholars for 9/11 Truth. They have decided to go their separate ways. One side believes the towers came down due to conventional explosives. The other side believes they came down due to unconventional (high tech) explosives. However, they are united in their view that the official explanation (planes striking buildings plus fires initiated by jet fuel) could not be true.
3. Guess I can't think of any new developments on the peak-oil scene. Probably the biggest thing is the growing list of countries shifting their future oil contracts out of US dollars.
4. I sat in on a breakout session recently at a conference with Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. He discussed President Bush's support for the Military Commissions Act. During the session, Paul said that "the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities."
Paul also warned that "the Military Commissions Act and the Defense Authorization Act . . . essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus."
Paul continued by noting, "Right now we don't have concentration camps, but . . . the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus." He then said, "If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun?"
Dwain
Here's some recent happenings on my favorite topics:
1. I just read an outstanding article in New Yorker by Calvin Trillin about his late wife, Alice. She was a giving, a caring person unlike probably anyone you've heard of before. As a very minor comment late in the article, Calvin said she had absolutely no interest in religion.
2. Two factions have developed within Scholars for 9/11 Truth. They have decided to go their separate ways. One side believes the towers came down due to conventional explosives. The other side believes they came down due to unconventional (high tech) explosives. However, they are united in their view that the official explanation (planes striking buildings plus fires initiated by jet fuel) could not be true.
3. Guess I can't think of any new developments on the peak-oil scene. Probably the biggest thing is the growing list of countries shifting their future oil contracts out of US dollars.
4. I sat in on a breakout session recently at a conference with Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. He discussed President Bush's support for the Military Commissions Act. During the session, Paul said that "the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities."
Paul also warned that "the Military Commissions Act and the Defense Authorization Act . . . essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus."
Paul continued by noting, "Right now we don't have concentration camps, but . . . the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus." He then said, "If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun?"
Dwain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)