Sourcebook on 9/11 and its Aftermath
World Trade Center 7
11 September 2007
Table of Contents
The two towers collapsed on 11 September 2001, after each was struck by an airplane. Everyone on the globe who had access to a television set has seen the dramatic and tragic images. However, to this day, only very few people are aware of the existence of WTC7 or its fate. This building was not hit by any airplane, but still collapsed seven hours after the towers.
WTC7 was built around a core of 24 massive steel columns, connected by an asymmetric pattern of steel cross beams. The building periphery was made up of 57 smaller columns. There was enough redundant capacity in the design to handle loads several times greater than foreseeable loads from hurricanes or earthquakes, etc.
The collapse of the nearest tower, WTC1, caused damage to the lower floors in the southwest corner of WTC7. Building debris from the high tower and large amounts of dust poured in through the windows. Randomly distributed fires then broke out on other lower floors in the building. One of the other buildings in the complex, WTC5, was much more seriously damaged by the collapse of WTC1, but the rest of the structure remained standing.
WTC7 did not. After the building had smouldered for seven hours, it collapsed, perfectly symmetrically. It was quite literally levelled, and ended up as a pile that was basically confined to its footprint. The process took 6.4 seconds, which is equivalent to "free fall". If you had stood on the 47th floor and thrown an apple out the window at the exact moment the collapse began, your apple would have hit the ground at the same time as the roof. (Prof. Niels Harrit, “The Seventh Tower,” 911Truth.dk, downloaded from http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm, 19 Aug. 2007.)
In the hours following the airplane strikes on the two towers, a global myth began to spread that the World Trade Centre collapsed due to fire and mechanical damage.
The only problem is that no steel structure has ever before collapsed due to fire, it is historically unprecedented. Over 400 cases of fire in that type of skyscraper are known prior to 2001, and none have collapsed. Not one.
During a well-known tower fire in
The fires in the WTC1 and WTC2 towers were oxygen-starved fires of this nature, as could be seen from the large quantities of black smoke. The jet fuel was burned up within a few minutes, and the temperature would never have exceeded 650° C. This is true no matter how much jet fuel there was. It is also difficult to achieve high local temperatures in a steel structure, because the heat is conducted away and spread throughout the whole structure. According to official computer simulations, no components of the towers reached temperatures above 600° C.
Steel melts at 1,500° C, but begins to soften at around 425° C. Half of the structural strength has been lost at 650° C, and the steel begins to glow red. But even if only half of the structural strength remains, the structure can easily bear two or three times the load. It is only at 800° C that the structure would being to break down.
The fact that steel doesn't easily melt is something we should all be thankful for in our daily lives. Otherwise, your domestic oven would end up as a lump of cast iron, and frying sausages over a gas flame could also lead to unpleasant consequences. And if it was possible to bring down skyscrapers by setting fire to some office furniture, you could patent the method and set up a very profitable demolition business.
There is therefore no scientific precedent that justifies pointing to commonplace fires as a possible explanation for the collapse of WTC7.
Surely then, the explanation must be that the enormous weight of the debris from the collapse of towers WTC1 and WTC2 damaged the building or its foundations to such an extent that it collapsed?
After a delay of seven hours?
The WTC collapse
When tall buildings are exposed to extreme earthquakes, they tip over as they fall. If there is enough room, they sometimes tip right onto their sides. WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this. (Prof. Niels Harrit, “The Seventh Tower,” 911Truth.dk, downloaded from http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm, 19 Aug. 2007.)
It therefore wasn't damage to the foundations that caused WTC7 to collapse.
Two official explanations of the events in
In the final FEMA report, WTC7 is hardly mentioned. They note that there were fires in the building, but do not attempt to explain the collapse.
The final NIST report was released in September 2005, but the section covering WTC7 was left out, with the promise that a final version would be released later. Publication has been delayed several times, and we are still waiting for it.
In a draft summary of the WTC7 report from April 2005, NIST admits that they have only worked using the hypothesis that the collapse of WTC7 was a "normal" collapse. They try to make a case for this by presenting a diagram in which a bearing column is purportedly destroyed by the fires and the mechanical damage seven hours earlier. The vertical collapse of this column is supposed to have pulled the structure apart horizontally, after which the building collapsed in one synchronous movement.
The NIST report simply presents this hypothetical sequence of events. The authors do not go to the trouble of actually claiming that this is what happened.
In other words, we should picture a huge steel grid 47-storeys high, in which one of the vertical steel girders is torn asunder. It is difficult to reconcile this mental picture with the video recordings of the collapse available on the Internet.
NIST actually took the sensible step of engaging a company to construct models of the steel structure in the two towers. The models were then exposed to fires and damage. Even though temperatures were used which were significantly higher than what could have resulted from the attack, they were unable to provoke a collapse. The models remained standing. NIST chose, however, to ignore this result. (Prof. Niels Harrit, “The Seventh Tower,” 911Truth.dk, downloaded from http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm, 19 Aug. 2007.)
July 14, 2001, Larry A. Silverstein, who already owned World Trade Center 7, signs a $3.2 billion 99-year lease on the entire
Dave vonKleist: Let’s listen to a clip from Larry Silverstein, he was the lease owner of the
Larry Silverstein: I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said you know we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. Uhhh… And they made that decision to pull, (1) then we watched the building...collapse. (9/11: In Plane Site.)
(1) “Pull” is a demolition term for “destroy the building.” Film clips reveal that the building, though it had not been hit by an airplane and suffered only a minor fire, was indeed “pulled.” Moreover, the BBC knew a half hour ahead of time that Building 7 was going to come down.
Dave vonKleist: Now we’ve just heard Larry Silverstein making the admission that when it came to building seven the decision was made to PULL IT – a term that is used by demolition experts in bringing a building down, but what was America and the rest of the world told as to why building seven came down?
(CBS VIDEO CLIP)
About an hour ago World Trade Center Building Number Seven collapsed. A forty-two story building - weakened by the devastation that has occurred earlier today.
vonKleist: We’ve all seen controlled demolitions on television. Office buildings, sports stadiums, all brought down by controlled charges. And these charges and controlled demolitions take weeks of planning. They have to bring in experts and do structural analysis of the buildings, study which beams, which girders have to have charges placed on them. And then a team of experts has to come and set the charges, wire them all together in sequence. And then, finally after everything is clear, they let the building go, or “pull it.”
Are we to believe that 8 hours after a surprise attack in
After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back.
The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building’s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse.” Statement of Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, M.S., Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/, 6 August 2007.)
Meet Torin Wolf. He has a broad and varied background as a US Army Combat Nurse during Operation Iraqi Freedom....
...building construction contractor, certified structural welder, certified asbestos and hazardous materials worker, experienced demolitions expert, teacher, radio show host, and well studied 9/11 truth activist. Torin knows how to put a building up, and bring the same building down in its own footprint. …
Torin … gives his expert analysis on Building 7…. For those that are new to this information, Building 7 was the third building to collapse on 9/11. After a thirty second countdown was given by firefighters, it collapsed perfectly into its own footprint at 5:20 in the afternoon. It housed the IRS, Department of Defense, CIA, Secret Service, and the Security and Exchange Commission among many others. While I can't cover all of the hard hitting information Torin brought up about Building 7, the highlight was his analysis of the collapse, which played over and over again on the screen behind him, “There is no doubt about it, this is a controlled demolition profile” then Torin directed everyone to view the kink, which is characteristic of a controlled demolition. (Gibb Wake, “
Question of David Ray Griffin: Building 7 was 47 stories high and not hit by an airplane. Do we know why it collapsed?
David Ray Griffin: It’s still not covered, even by the 9/11 Commission Report. Building 7 was the least covered of the buildings that collapsed and the least understood, but the most glaring example of potential complicity by the administration.
It is the most obvious because with the Towers, one can think that somehow the planes hitting them caused them to weaken and fall down but with Building 7, it would be the first building in history that was ever brought down entirely by fire alone.
And so it’s obviously the biggest embarrassment for the government, so the 9/11 Commission handled Building 7 by simply not mentioning that it collapsed. This should have been a world-shaking event that would have led all insurance companies around the world to say, now we know, steel framed high rise buildings can totally collapse because of fire alone, so we’ve got to up our premiums greatly. But they didn’t even mention this historic event.
Now we come to the NIST Commission, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, have put out a report claiming that they have given an explanation of why the
Q: FEMA could not explain it either?
DRG: FEMA did the first investigation, and they came up with a scenario in which maybe timbers from one of the towers came over and set the diesel fuel on fire and turned Building 7 into Towering Inferno. Of course the photographs show that there were fires on only two or three floors of the 47-story building at most.
But nevertheless, they say maybe this is what happened, but then at the end of all that they said, the best possible explanation we could give has a very low probability of occurrence. So in other words, they admit they couldn’t explain it.
Q: Wasn’t the collapse captured on video and didn’t it in fact look like a controlled demolition?
DRG: It was even more obviously a case of controlled implosion than the Towers, because the Towers, the collapse had to begin near the top where the planes had hit because that was going to be the story. But Building 7 was just a traditional controlled implosion, where it starts from the bottom and the walls fold in on themselves and it collapses into a very tiny pile of rubble.
And so to show you what lack of confidence NIST has in its report, a fellow named Ed Haas, who has a muckraker report that you can find on Google, called up the spokesman for NIST, named Michael Newman, and said, you know you’ve got all these physicists who reject the official story and they believe that it was an inside job, why don’t we settle all this by having a debate on national television, between some of these scientists and your NIST scientists? And Newman said no NIST scientist is going to debate. And he’s reiterated that.
So he has said nobody from NIST will ever debate their report. In other words, they will not defend it in public, even though it’s a taxpayer supported project and they should be demanded to report it. So that shows you how flimsy the official story is. And they still have not issued a report on it.
They will not debate their report on the Towers. Obviously, they’re not going to defend their debate on Building 7—they won’t even issue it, just hope the public forgets about it. Because the press does not keep reminding people that Building 7 did collapse and it’s a total mystery. (“Interview with David Ray Griffin,” Whole Life Times, downloaded from http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html, 7 August 2007.)
People were told, the crowds of people were TOLD over bullhorns, that building 7 was going to be pulled (and YES that is the term they used).
There was a 20 second countdown over the radios, there were bright flashes up and down the sides of building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us!
There was no question about it until a day or so later when the news was reporting that it had collapsed due to fire. We kept wondering when they were going to correct the news reports. Eventually, it became "official story".
I tried to explain that wasn't what happened. I kept telling people there were explosions.
I kept explaining what I saw, and wrote to the newspapers, the networks, and the government about what I saw. I called to speak to the FDNY, and NYPD. I told them what I knew and wanted know why the news reports were wrong. I wasn't told I was wrong. I wasn't even given a different explanation.
I was just told to "shut up", "forget about it", or "let it go, for my own good".
I told my EMT Coordinator In Charge what we saw. The four of us from my squad who went were first congratulated for responding and doing such a good job, and later, two of us (the two that refused to "let it go") were brought up on charges of disorderly conduct, fired, and fined for the uniforms and equipment we used on 9/11 because they were ruined.
The other two (who are women, one a mother of two, the other a mother of 3) now refuse to admit they were even there, even to us! They just won't speak about it. The four of us were heroes. Two of us were harrassed and fired, and the other two have to deny ever being there. (New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician who wishes to be known only by his first name, Mike, writing to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, Conspiracy Planet, 7 August 2007, downloaded from http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=89&contentid=4213&page=2, 7 August 2007.)
The American public was treated to wall-to-wall television coverage of the September 11th attack throughout the day and for nearly the entire following week. Yet most Americans remember only two skyscrapers collapsing in Lower Manhattan on the day of the attack: the
Building 7 was neither hit by an airplane nor, apparently, by heavy fallout from the collapse of either of the
The collapse of Building 7 was reported on 9/11/2001, apparently by all or most of the television networks. These reports were so obscure that it was not until 2007 that researchers discovered that the BBC and CNN had announced the collapse before it occurred.
Despite the enormity of this event, there is no mention of it in a timetable of press flashes, alerts, and bulletins from the day of and after the attack compiled by the Associated Press. 1 (WTC7.net, “The Silence Surrounding Building 7,” http://wtc7.net/silence.html, downloaded 25 July 2007.)
1. A stunning 48 hours of news, Associated Press,
About an hour ago, World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed, a 42-storey building, weakened by the devastation that had occurred earlier today. No word on any casualties in the building. It was the one calamity that was not a surprise. Police had evacuated the area hours ago, fearful Building No. 7 would indeed fall down. (CBS News reporter, 11 September 2007, in 9/11 Conspiracy – Flight 93 crashes at Camp David Part 2, downloaded from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKHXBWvjUnY&mode=related&search=, 1 August 2007.)
Another big question created by the official story is how the hijackers, by crashing planes into the
Andrea von Bulow, former Defence Minister of Germany: The mayor was in this building [WTC 7]. So, it was not hit by a plane, and the fire was very low. And the surrounding steel constructions were left over and didn’t collapse. But, the Building 7 collapsed in late afternoon at 5 o’ clock I think.
Alex Jones: Well, from our internal sources, they were running the attacks sir, out of the building and so conveniently got rid of the evidence in one fell swoop. (“Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA Involvement in 9/11: Alex Jones Interviews Andreas Von Buelow,” Prison Planet, downloaded from http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html, 15 Aug. 2007.)
The next obvious flaw is how to topple the Security & Exchange (SEC) records building at the WTC-7 without striking it with an airplane or without a major fire.
This flaw worried the master planners all throughout September 11, 2001.
The arsonists had done a professional job of evacuating everyone and then systematically torching as many floors in the building as they could. But still, compared to many other major fires in steel skyscrapers, the spot fires in WTC-7 resembled exactly what it was: arson.
Still the peculiar collapse, caught on video and film, of the building falling straight down and close to freefall gravitational speed, remains a flaw by the master planners.
They factored on the many videos of the second plane smacking the WTC but did not factor for the endless video record of the controlled demolition of WTC-7. (Douglas Herman, “The Flaws in the Perfect Plan of 911,” rense.com, 10 Jan. 2007, downloaded from http://www.rense.com/general74/pplan.htm, 7 August 2007.
WTC towers were money-losers for Port Authority. Tenancy continued to drop. Their steel beams had been sprayed with cancer-causing asbestos. To remove it would have been almost undoable. (Coincidences 9/11 – Part 9.)
Consider the insurance payouts that a jury awarded to the WTC leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, who admitted that he authorized the FDNY to "pull” (i.e. demolish) WTC Building 7, which was not hit by any aircraft. Silverstein is currently under investigation on suspicion of arson (at least). (9/11Truth.org, Answers to 9/11 Families’ Questions, posted 20 July 2007 at http://blogs.albawaba.com/post/2011/73057, downloaded August 6, 2007.)
Mr. Goldman led a group including Mr. Cayre that put up most of the $125 million of the equity that Mr. Silverstein, a
Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Port Authority in December had quietly agreed to return all of the $125 million in equity that Mr. Silverstein and his low-profile group originally invested to buy the leases. The full details of that transaction haven't been released to the public. But the deal effectively eliminated the Silverstein group's capital risk in the project, while allowing the group to retain control of 10 million square feet of office space. The Port Authority has rejected a Wall Street Journal request to review the transaction, citing Mr. Silverstein's ongoing lawsuit against his insurers, led by Swiss Reinsurance Co., over how many claims may be collected as a result of the attacks. (Dean Starkman, “MetLife will Sell Sears Tower,” Wall Street Journal, 12 March 2004.)
NY Governor Eliot Spitzer filed an amicus brief on 1/15/03 on behalf of the
This amicus brief has never been reported before today, in print or online. It was discovered in the court archives on the 17th floor of the 2nd Circuit Court (NYC), and released to the New York Megaphone by attorney Carl Person. In reporter Sander Hicks's exclusive story, author and lawyer Carl Person says:
"I was surprised to see that Spitzer had used his position as attorney general to support one private litigant over another. Normally, this is not done." (“9/11 Spitzser Scandal,” 911Blogger.com, 9 September 2007, downloaded from http://www.911blogger.com/node/11254, 11 Sept. 2007.)
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in
It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at
McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the
Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.
Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails for comment.
KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.
The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period.
Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002.
But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the FBI or other investigators.
The suite in which Marvin Bush was annually re-elected, according to public records, is located in the Watergate in space leased to the Saudi government. The company now holds shareholder meetings in space leased by the Kuwaiti government there. The White House has not responded to various requests for comment.
Speaking of the Watergate, Riggs National Bank, where Saudi Princess Al-Faisal had her ``Saudi money trail" bank account, has as one of its executives Jonathan Bush, an uncle of the president. The public has not learned whether Riggs - which services 95 percent of
Meanwhile, Bush has nominated William H. Donaldson to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Donaldson, a longtime Bush family friend, was a Yale classmate of Jonathan Bush.
On the very day of the tragic space shuttle crash, the government appointed an independent investigative panel, and rightly so. Why didn't it do the same on Sept. 12, 2001? (Margie Burns, “Bush-Linked Company handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United,” Prince George’s Journal, 4 Feb. 2003, downloaded from http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm, 1 Aug. 2007.)
Andreas von Bulow: Well, nobody can prove what happened [on] 9 11 directly because it has been a covert operation and you don’t find proof; you will find only indications. And one of the indications - the indication that everything is right with these nineteen people and Usama bin Laden - is that the government is free to show all the [proof] that is on the table that is on the street that lays on the ground of the World Trade Center and so on and so on. If you have a covert operation the probability is always that the leftover pieces of proof are taken away immediately and a lot of secrecy, a band of secrecy, has taken over everything. And, this has happened with 9 11. (“Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA Involvement in 9/11: Alex Jones Interviews Andreas Von Buelow,” Prison Planet, downloaded from http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html, 15 Aug. 2007.)
We heard about air toxicity at Ground Zero still afflicting firefighters, first responders, and
The Haunting of the White House,” 911 Truth.org, 1November 2004.)
Dangerously high levels of asbestos, lead, PCB’s, mercury, radioactive materials, and powdered concrete were in the air after the towers were demolished. Much to the surprise of many audience members, we learned from Torin that by far the most dangerous on the list was the pulverized concrete. The pulverized concrete, which was thick in the air around ground zero after the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, had a pH of 12 which is “about the same as drain cleaner.” This pH level, when breathed in and gets wet in your lungs, will cause chemical burns. “Wet concrete can burn you,” Torin adds. The asbestos is bad, but that will kill you over 20 years - the powdered concrete will kill much faster. So its no surprise to learn that all of the 9/11 rescue and recovery dogs are dead.
Torin’s report goes on to explain how “emissions from the WTC piles were recorded to be hundreds of times above the legal Permissible Exposure Limit as established by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health for more than 2 weeks after 9/11.” Sheer contempt of Christine Todd Whitman, head of the EPA is expressed next by Torin. Torin is rightly angry at her for saying the air was safe to breathe and that people should return to work, even though they refused to release the data from their testing at that time to substantiate their declaration. Torin uncovers that, “The EPA didn’t begin monitoring for airborne asbestos levels until 8:00pm September 14, 2001 – a day and a half after they told everyone that it was safe to return.” Torin then cites the exact law that the EPA is violating and the number of regulatory duties that are violated as well. Torin has caught the EPA in direct violation of a federal law, punishable by up to 10 years in prison as well as a $250,000 fine for each violation. Before the EPA did the tests, independent tests were done in which the machines that do the air quality testing “were so full of junk that they couldn't be read.” If that is the case, Torin adds, “You must, by law, throw the sample out.”
What was in the readable air samples? “Sampling of bulk materials and dust found generally low levels of asbestos.” Since Torin has worked with hazardous materials for over 12 years specializing in asbestos abatement, he knows quite a bit about the industry. “There is no such thing as a 'low level of asbestos'. Bulk samples, by Federal law, either are (>1%) or are not (<1%) asbestos containing materials.” Bottom line, the EPA failed to perform its duties in regards to 9/11 and actively encouraged people to enter an unsafe area containing hazardous materials. As anyone working in the asbestos industry, Torin wanted to land the contract to clean the asbestos in the
A critical slide in [Torin Wolf’s] presentation of Rudolph Giuliani is displayed next. It should be noted that Giuliani agreed with Christine Todd Whitman that the air at ground zero was safe. Giuliani was appointed
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!” …
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.” (Alan Miller, “Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation,” OpeEdNews.com, 21 August 2007, downloaded from http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm, 23 Aug. 2007.)