NIST rationale for witholding some of the WTC7 model details

letrec

New Blood
L
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
14
Hello everyone,

This is my first post so I won't be able to provide links, but everything is easily googleable.

As you may know, NIST has conducted detailed modeling and simulation of the WTC7 collapse. Detailed reports are available on the web, and the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models are also available on Google code under the nist-wtc7 project, except for the connection models.

Those are being withheld following section 7(d) of the US National Construction Safety Team Act (HR 4687, 2002.) Patrick Gallagher, who was (and may still be) NIST Director signed a "Finding Regarding Public Safety Information" where he explains that those details might jeopardize public safety. A copy of this is available on the web.

CTs believe that NIST won't release the full model because the collapse is "not natural" and a collapse sequence cannot be produced with an accurate model. Thus NIST is basically fueling CT flames.

Now it is easy to imagine that providing the full simulation model of WTC7, a building that underwent progressive collapse, might allow would-be terrorists (or arsonists or other organized crime) to optimize the placement of destructive devices to bring down a building or to otherwise select buildings having adequate weaknesses.

However CTs argue that such information is already "readily available in controlled demolition courses" and/or wouldn't help would be terrorists. In other words they claim that the concern about public safety is bogus.

So I have two questions:

1. How legitimate is the concern about public safety? Can it be substantiated, maybe by giving an example where such data was used by terrorists?

2. As the NIST FOIA refusal seems to be one of the last things the CTs cling to (after the nanothermite fiasco), and as conspiracy theories push maladjusted individuals and extremist groups to commit acts of violence (as we have seen in the Vegas shootings), wouldn't it be better to just release the data to put a halt to the WTC7 speculation?
 
letrec said:
...
...
2. As the NIST FOIA refusal seems to be one of the last things the CTs cling to (after the nanothermite fiasco), and as conspiracy theories push maladjusted individuals and extremist groups to commit acts of violence (as we have seen in the Vegas shootings), wouldn't it be better to just release the data to put a halt to the WTC7 speculation?
Click to expand...
What did the Vegas shooting have to do with 911?

Engineers can do a model without the help of NIST. 911 truth's point on this issue. a Gish Gallop used to spread lies.

Maybe the victim families and sue Gage for spreading lies if the couple were inspired by 911 truth.
 
Last edited:
WTC-7's blue prints are on file with the city. Anyone can hire an engineering firm to model the building in a computer, and then from there someone can run every scenario they can think of to bring it down.

I should add it would be a great idea for a Master's Thesis for an engineering or physics degree.

My point is that the data isn't withheld. With work anyone can get access to it. The only conspiracy is laziness.
 
Axxman300 said:
WTC-7's blue prints are on file with the city. Anyone can hire an engineering firm to model the building in a computer, and then from there someone can run every scenario they can think of to bring it down.

I should add it would be a great idea for a Master's Thesis for an engineering or physics degree.

My point is that the data isn't withheld. With work anyone can get access to it. The only conspiracy is laziness.
Click to expand...

Whoa...whoa...whoa, you want truthers to find information for themselves? No, their job is just to ask questions. You have to find the information for them (which, since you are one of the sheeple, can be disregarded anyway because CIA, Bush-Cheney, false flag....well, you get the idea.)
 
letrec said:
2. As the NIST FOIA refusal seems to be one of the last things the CTs cling to (after the nanothermite fiasco), and as conspiracy theories push maladjusted individuals and extremist groups to commit acts of violence (as we have seen in the Vegas shootings), wouldn't it be better to just release the data to put a halt to the WTC7 speculation?
Click to expand...
I actually LOL'd at this.
 
beachnut said:
What did the Vegas shooting have to do with 911?
Click to expand...

Not 911 specifically, but they were conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theories fuel violent, paranoid anti-government worldviews.

Axxmane300 said:
WTC-7's blue prints are on file with the city. Anyone can hire an engineering firm to model the building in a computer, and then from there someone can run every scenario they can think of to bring it down.
Click to expand...

In that case the full NIST models must contain information that is not available in those blueprints for the Gallagher's public safety justification to be valid. Otherwise based on what you said anyone, including criminals could hire an engineer and reconstitute the data and there is no point in withholding the details.

Axxmane300 said:
My point is that the data isn't withheld.
Click to expand...

That's not what the NIST director says.

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION

Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the
disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the
collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September
11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following
information:
1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed
connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads,
break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable
ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop
floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA
47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures
leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to
develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

Patrick Gallagher
Director
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009
Click to expand...
 
There is an article in Structure mag that explains the modeling process. It seems that the company SGH used what they believe were "innovative" techniques by introducing "break elements".

Here's a scenario that may explain why NIST witholds that data.
I don't have much evidence to back it up. But it doesn't involve nanothermite! :)

* NIST contracts SGH to model the WTC 1&2 collapse
* As the WTC is very big and complicated and the contract important SGH puts a lot of effort and ends up creating innovative modeling techniques (evidence in the article)
* Management realizes these new techniques could give them some edge over competitors; so they don't want them released (no evidence but not too unreasonable of an assumption)
* However their contract with NIST doesn't allow SGH to keep their model secret... (a reasonable assumption given the text of the law under which NIST conducted the modeling)
* So SGH talks NIST into using the "public safety" clause to hide their competititve data when they use those break elements for modeling WTC 7.

Here's a quote from the web version of the Structure mag article about the innovative aspects of the modeling:

Computer Modeling of Collapse of World Trade Center Towers

[...]

Innovative Aspects of Modeling

To accurately model the towers’ collapse and to represent the post-failure response of the towers while maintaining computational efficiency of the FE models, SGH developed temperature-dependent "break elements." These elements allow numerical modeling of failure of components and connections during the computation process, and load redistribution pursuant to the failure of the member of those components and connections. Break elements proved to be a useful tool for capturing ultimate strength of steel, plastic buckling of truss web diagonal members, loss of truss end support, column splice failure, and spandrel splice failure in the subsystem analyses.

SGH also implemented temperature-dependent, nonlinear material properties including plasticity, thermal expansion, and creep in the FE models. The use of temperature-dependent coefficients of thermal expansion, modulus, and yield strength for steel had been tried before in analysis of structures subjected to fire, but the use of temperature-dependent creep models for steel was unprecedented.
Click to expand...
 
(Sorry the message was posted twice for some reason.)
 
Last edited:
So, SGH developed sub element calculations to fit into LS-DYNA that improve its performance. It therefore seems to be a tech advantage that they do not want foreign entities hostile to the USA , or anyone else who may wish to bomb a large structure, to be able to use.

Nor does one wish to be particularly vocal about exactly how this compromises public safety.

Issue solved, IMO.
 
I doubt it's genuinely "export control"-grade technology, but it might be enough of a trade secret that SGH wants to keep it to themselves on commercial grades.

But I agree, it also makes sense that you wouldn't want efficient building collapse simulation code in the hands of Joe Random Terrorist. Still, it's not abundantly clear how J.R.T would make use of that info, instead of say simply planting more devices even if it's less efficient; but better be safe than sorry.
 
letrec said:
I doubt it's genuinely "export control"-grade technology, but it might be enough of a trade secret that SGH wants to keep it to themselves on commercial grades.

But I agree, it also makes sense that you wouldn't want efficient building collapse simulation code in the hands of Joe Random Terrorist. Still, it's not abundantly clear how J.R.T would make use of that info, instead of say simply planting more devices even if it's less efficient; but better be safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

Of course if there is a way that JRT could make use of this information, it would not be a good idea to;
- give out that information
- outline just how that information could be best utilized.
 
letrec said:
I doubt it's genuinely "export control"-grade technology, but it might be enough of a trade secret that SGH wants to keep it to themselves on commercial grades.

But I agree, it also makes sense that you wouldn't want efficient building collapse simulation code in the hands of Joe Random Terrorist. Still, it's not abundantly clear how J.R.T would make use of that info, instead of say simply planting more devices even if it's less efficient; but better be safe than sorry.
Click to expand...
I had to unload ALGOR and MathCad from my laptop when traveling to Canada, so as not to be in violation of ITAR and EAR.
Yes, a lot of that is Export Controlled--including some Reference Books.
 
My point is that anyone with the know-how, or money can create an accurate structural model of all of the WTC buildings if they choose ton do so. From there you can run every scenario under the sun: Planes, holograms, thermite, bad tacos, attack baboons, etc.

You don't need the NIST.

I point this out because engineering students in Japan and other countries have done this already.

If you believe the NIST and the government are the bad guys you go around them and do your own work. It has been 13 years, plenty of time to have uncovered the full truth if an alternate truth existed.

Most survivors are still willing to talk on the record about the attack. Thousands worked in the buildings, thousands of cops and FDNY were on scene, and over a thousand worked to clear the pile, and out at Fresh Kills. Even if only 1% talked that's still over a hundred people.
 
rwguinn said:
I had to unload ALGOR and MathCad from my laptop when traveling to Canada, so as not to be in violation of ITAR and EAR.
Yes, a lot of that is Export Controlled--including some Reference Books.
Click to expand...

US export controls can be quite silly; at work we joke about things being ITARded. I tried to preempt that by saying "genuinely export controlled".
But then they should be able to invoke ITAR instead of the Construction Safety Act and release the data to US nationals provided they do not "re-export" it.

Axxman300 said:
My point is that anyone with the know-how, or money can create an accurate structural model of all of the WTC buildings if they choose ton do so. From there you can run every scenario under the sun: Planes, holograms, thermite, bad tacos, attack baboons, etc.

You don't need the NIST.
Click to expand...

I agree and the fact that the CTs haven't done that (even for WTC1 & 2 where detailed blueprints are available online) speaks volumes. Now I think we did find a reasonable justification, and while truther types won't listen to it, the goal is always to bring people on the fence to the right side of the fence and prevent more people from crossing to the wrong side.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
If you believe the NIST and the government are the bad guys you go around them and do your own work. It has been 13 years, plenty of time to have uncovered the full truth if an alternate truth existed.
Click to expand...
And plenty of time to get dual doctorates in Physics and Engineering, even if you are starting from being a high school senior.
 
letrec said:
Otherwise based on what you said anyone, including criminals could hire an engineer and reconstitute the data and there is no point in withholding the details.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the information to create a nuclear bomb is available in pieces if you comb the internet. Do you understand why there are laws against step-by-step instructions?

There is good reason not to spoonfeed terrorists.
 
Mark F said:
You got that backwards.
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif

So true. And so often seen with reversed causality.

But then both ways can be true - it is a "feedback loop" after all. ;)
 
Last edited:
There has been a very interesting post on Reddit under /r/skeptic, where user benthamitemetric provided a ton of very, very valuable information you won't find anywhere else.

I encourage users to find that thread and post a link, for I cannot post URLs yet.

Within that post, user junklesstrunk asked what is pretty much the main question of this thread, and benthamitemetric gave an interesting answer to the main question of this thread, which kind of confirms what we have been guessing.

benthamitemetric said:
junklesstrunk said:
This post is great and necessary and I love it. Truthers are ridiculous. I do have one question though, and maybe I missed it, but why wouldn't they release these 3370 files? I can understand that a model and consensus can be reached without them, but why not just release the rest too?
Click to expand...
NIST's lawyers determined that those files could not be turned over on public safety grounds under 5 USC § 552(b)(3). The argument is essentially that those files in the hands of the wrong people could teach them how to successfully induce progressive collapses of tall, steel-framed buildings. NIST did not provide a lot of detail as to exactly why it thought that way, but it does not seem entirely unreasonable on its face given that NIST did conclude as part of its investigation that, even absent the fires, removing column 79 between floors 11 and 13 would have entirely collapsed the building. (Aegis Insurance's experts also testified that they independently reached that conclusion.) It's thus not crazy to think that there are other long-span truss, open-floor steel buildings that are similarly susceptible to progressive collapse initiation and thus to be worried that someone, given very specific information as to the weaknesses of wtc 7, could figure out how to attack them.

I admit that I'm not sure it is a terribly convincing argument on its face. But, then again, I don't have access to the files and thus cannot verify the claim. The thing about the FOIA Act, however, is that it gives federal district courts direct jurisdiction to hear appeals of agency denials made under the auspices of § 552(b)(3). Given that no one but NIST can judge the merits of its claims, the only way to resolve the impasse and correctly determine the danger posed by the files would have been to appeal to federal court and let it decide. The truth movement claims it filed such an appeal, but I can find no federal court docket entry that demonstrates it ever did (and I've never seen evidence of such a filing provided elsewhere). Either the truth movement suspected it would lose the appeal or it just decided not to file it for other reasons.

One other thing to note is that NIST's denial of the materials to the public does not mean that NIST necessarily withholds the materials from actual structural engineers who use them for limited, non-public purposes. In fact, in his first declaration to federal court in the Aegis case, Dr. Colaco testified that NIST was providing him with collapse model information to aid in his modeling. I don't know whether that information included those 3000 files or not, but it may well have. Further, the NIST report did pass a very rigorous peer review process where any of the peer review panelists had an obligation to request any data they needed before republishing the NIST report. Again, we do not know exactly what files NIST provided them in support of its conclusions, but we do know that the panel was satisfied with whatever they received and that the ASCE has an official policy of not publishing papers unless the peer reviewers have access to all the relevant data:

Recognizing that science and engineering are best served when data are made available during the review and discussion of manuscripts and journal articles, and to allow others to replicate and build on work published in ASCE journals, all reasonable requests by reviewers for materials, data, and associated protocols must be fulfilled. ASCE must be informed of any restrictions on sharing of materials (Materials Transfer Agreements or patents, for example) applying to materials used in the reported research. Any such restrictions should be indicated in the cover letter at the time of submission, and each individual author will be asked to reaffirm this at the time the final version of the manuscript is submitted. The nature of the restrictions should be noted in the paper. Data not shown and personal communications cannot be used to support claims in the work. Authors are encouraged to use Supplemental Data to show all necessary data. Unreasonable restrictions may preclude publication.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

EDIT: The title of the Reddit post is "Compilation of Scientific Literature that Directly Cites to and Support's NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions" and the subreddit is /r/skeptic
 
Last edited:
What is the issue?

NIST decided to not release certain documents.

Due legal process supports NIST's decision.

[/end of argument till someone makes a claim we can discuss.]

What am I missing - if anything?
scratch.gif
 
Given that no one but NIST can judge the merits of its claims
Click to expand...


This is essentially the correct answer, as unsatisfying as it is. It's an inherent truth that only someone who knows what a secret is can judge if it should remain a secret. While that has obvious opportunities for abuse, it's a problem that simply cannot be fixed, short of just denying anyone the power to keep anything secret.
 
Axxman300 said:
My point is that anyone with the know-how, or money can create an accurate structural model of all of the WTC buildings if they choose ton do so.
Click to expand...

Long time lurker, first time poster. As you can tell from the user name I chose, I am not, nor ever have been, a 9/11 truther.

I do, however, take exception to the assertion that anyone can build an "accurate" structural model of ANY building. In order to construct such a model one has to make some inherently flawed assumptions. The first is that all structural members are uniform in their material properties. This is because each I-beam, H-beam, or whatever is unique coming out of the manufacturing process. Similar and up to minimum specs (this is why manufacturing processes have quality assurance practices built into them), yes. IDENTICAL or uniform? No.

The same concept applies to the riveting that adjoins structural members. Each rivet is unique.

Next, a modeler has to make ASSUMPTIONS regarding what the live and dead loads were at various parts of the structure.

A modeler also has to make assumptions as to what damage was, in the cases of WTC 1&2, caused by the airplane impacts and subsequent fires or, in the case of WTC7, what damage was caused to it by falling debris and long-burning fires. These are incredibly complex events that it is virtually impossible to "accurately" model.

Finally, even more assumptions, compounded by the inherently flawed ones noted above, must be made in terms of how each structure failed with regard to how each structural member failed and in what succession. Not to mention assumptions regarding how much fireproofiing was blown off of individual structural members.

When all of this is taken into consideration, IMHO the best one can do when modeling these buildings and their collapses is end up with "crudely approximate" models.

My background: I have an undergrad degree in civil engineering where I spent hours and hours of study in materials science and structural engineering. This was back in the old days (around 1980) when you had to do very complicated calculus BY HAND in order to model the stresses, strains, forces, moments, etc.. in order to calculate the loads on various structural members.

I will always remember the first structural engineering class I took where the prof explained to the class that despite being comprised of large, and to a layperson, seemingly impervious steel structural members that skyscrapers are anything but indestructible and are, in fact, live and "fragile" integrated systems that, under certain conditions, are subject to failure and collapse. Wind loads, potential seismic loads, live loads and dead loads combined with a factor of safety are what goes into determining what size structural member is required in a given situation.

On the morning of 9/11, being on the west coast, I woke up a little after the first tower had been hit and the news channels were still speculating that it might be an accident. When the second plane hit it became obvious that it was not.

When the first tower later collapsed, given my education, I understood the basic mechanisms behind the collapse - compromised structural integrity further weakened by fire. I have a good understanding of the forces and kinetic energy involved so, despite my initial "common sense" incredulity, I understood why the building fell "straight down." Same thing for the next one - gravity.

WTC7: Despite the truther claim that it fell in X seconds, there were uncontrolled fires burning for several hours and it's collapse was predicted by many of the firefighters on scene well before it happened..

Being a 20-year-old male who liked watching big things blow up, I also took a few electives in CD when getting my CE degree. Although a cleverly edited truther WTC7 YouTube does make it look like CD in some respects, a look at on-scene firefighters' oral histories tells me that his was a structural failure that occurred over several hours, not seconds.
 
Welcome to the forum, Iamafalser! :w2:

Nice post, and sorry it took so long for anyone to welcome you!

How long have you lurked, and where else have you hung out on the intywebs?
 
Thanks for the welcome.

Back in the day there were a couple of political forums (that are no longer around) where I used to do battle with truthers to try to appeal to their logic and reason. I got the usual results - I was either "in denial" or a "paid shill." I'm sure you know the drill.

From Day 1 I've lurked at the 9/11 "dungeon" over at DU. Some of the whackiest stuff used to come out of there - especially from spooked911 - like the infamous "chicken wire" experiment. I still lurk there occasionally and think William Seger has the patience of Job for repeatedly debunking the same garbage over and over.

Aside from leaving a comment off the latest YouTube truther video now and then I really don't bother getting into it anymore. The only reason I registered here was that, for whatever reason, the notion that one could build an "accurate" model of one of the WTC buildings stuck in my craw and does not comport with reality for the reasons described above.

I've read up a bit on how the NIST model was developed and, at least as far as I'm concerned, it's a best guess. Trying to pin the failure on a particular or subset of structural members is a fool's errand IMHO. However, given the model results, I think the conclusions they reached with respect to the thermal expansion of long span members under such conditions are valid and have lead to better design concepts so I do definitely see value from the NIST model in that regard. (Along with their other recommendations.)
 
Iamafalser said:
Aside from leaving a comment off the latest YouTube truther video now and then I really don't bother getting into it anymore. The only reason I registered here was that, for whatever reason, the notion that one could build an "accurate" model of one of the WTC buildings stuck in my craw and does not comport with reality for the reasons described above.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough the models when aligned with the text are really very good. ;)

Iamafalser said:
I've read up a bit on how the NIST model was developed and, at least as far as I'm concerned, it's a best guess. Trying to pin the failure on a particular or subset of structural members is a fool's errand IMHO. However, given the model results, I think the conclusions they reached with respect to the thermal expansion of long span members under such conditions are valid and have lead to better design concepts so I do definitely see value from the NIST model in that regard. (Along with their other recommendations.)
Click to expand...

Seems like you have a good handle on the limitations contained within the model and reasoning for them being there.

"Truthers" on the other hand want the YouTube video NIST must have used to produce their results.

You would think with 2000+ engineers on tap they could do better than "just asking questions". :D
 
Last edited:
The funniest part about this whole claim. I wish NIST did send them the bulk file (with the stipulation that distribution would mean arrest). It would be fun watching Gage try to raise the several million dollars he would need to use it. After that, he would have to find some engineers that could interpret the data. This would set the "truth" back until atleast the next millennium. :)
 
DGM said:
The funniest part about this whole claim. I wish NIST did send them the bulk file (with the stipulation that distribution would mean arrest). It would be fun watching Gage try to raise the several million dollars he would need to use it. After that, he would have to find some engineers that could interpret the data. This would set the "truth" back until atleast the next millennium. :)
Click to expand...

You live in a fantasy world. Gage would never allow precious donation money to go anywhere but into his pockets or his vacation travels. :p
 
NIST's rationale is explicitly stated in the Judge's final ruling in the Quick v. NIST case.

tinyurl.com/oryrwqy

pg. 7 excerpts:
Judge C. KOLLAR-KOTELLY said:
Reduced to layman's terms, the difference between the information that was released and the information that was withheld is that the released data files contain structural models based on information generally available to building designers and engineers, whereas the withheld data files contain information that could be used to predict the collapse of a building and, if made available to a person with the appropriate level of expertise, would provide instruction to individuals wanting to learn how to simulate building collapses and how to most effectively destroy large buildings.

This explanation for non-disclosure is sufficiently "logical" or "plausible" to satisfy NIST's burden of justifying its withholdings, … and NIST has, moreover, explained in a "relatively detailed" manner why the exemption is relevant in this context and has appropriately correlated the exemption with the pertinent records, … In short, NIST has provided an adequate explanation of, and justification for, its withholding decisions.

Third, and finally, NIST's sworn declarations describe how, after conducting an extensive interrogation of the data files responsive to Quick's request, it has carefully reviewed and released all reasonably segregable information. Ultimately, NIST released a total of 25,644 data files and withheld another 68,500… In this case, NIST has provided a reasonably detailed explanation to support its claim that all non-exempt, responsive information has been produced.

In the final analysis, NIST conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to Quick's request; produced all disclosable records responsive to that request, including all reasonably segregable portions thereof; and properly withheld the remaining records pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3. Therefore, and because Quick has conceded the merits of NIST's arguments in this regard, the Court shall grant NIST's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.
Click to expand...

The Judge's Conclusion:
Judge C. KOLLAR-KOTELLY said:
V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall grant NIST's [10] Motion for Summary Judgment, deny Quick's [13] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismiss this action in its entirety. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Click to expand...

And the Judge's excoriation of the Plaintiff, Quick, is pretty hilarious.
Here's just a taste:

Judge C. KOLLAR-KOTELLY said:
B. Quick's Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment

The basis for Quick's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is not easy to define; he has repeatedly shifted his position and redefined his arguments with each successive filing, effectively presenting both this Court and NIST with a moving target. Indeed, the contours of Quick's arguments are not fully revealed until his reply. The variable nature of Quick's position appears to be the result of his efforts to adapt and correct his arguments — which are premised on an incorrect understanding of both the relevant facts and the applicable legal standard — once one avenue for relief has been all but foreclosed by NIST's responsive briefing.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the Truth Movement's lawyers aren't any better than their architects & engineers.

Every single observation by the judge is a perfect description of 12 years of Truther arguments. Shifting, redefinitions, moving targets, obscure arguments, variable positions, arguments based on an incorrect understanding of the relevant facts.

Gee, where have we seen all that before??
 
tfk said:
NIST's rationale is explicitly stated in the Judge's final ruling in the Quick v. NIST case.
Click to expand...

Aerospace disclosure and regulation work similarly, albeit with different ends in mind. The FAA, NTSB, and other agencies require aircraft manufacturers to disclose details of design, construction, and operation that constitute trade secrets and each participant's competitive advantage in the marketplace. Such disclosure, if not regulated, would be subject to public FOIA requests whereby a competitor could learn those trade secrets. Hence the law requires disclosure, but also provides for protection of trade secrets such that regulatory needs are met and commercial interests are protected. One cannot sue to have details of NTSB investigations made public that are deemed a proprietary interest.

It sounds like the Truth Movement's lawyers aren't any better than their architects & engineers.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but that's not really a valid comparison. I can't speak authoritatively for the ethical requirements of architects, but I can for engineers. Engineers have an ethical responsibility to the objective truth, so far as it is understood by the profession. An engineer who supported his client in an action that contravenes the known behavior of the physical world would be deemed unethical by his peers.

The practice of law, as I understand it, requires the lawyer vigorously to fight for the interests of his client, regardless of how fruitless or unmeritorious he believes that cause to be. The lawyer for a certainly guilty defendant still has the responsibility to mount his best attempt at a defense, even if it ultimately fails as a matter of fact or law. This has been explained to me by lawyers in cases to which I have been party: when lamenting the behavior of opposing counsel, I have been reminded that they have a fiduciary obligation to vigorously defend their clients' interests, not the truth.

Gee, where have we seen all that before??
Click to expand...

Birthers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom