The Battle For Ground Zero: Tofel's, And Pataki's, IFC Blundering

Tuesday, he [Tofel] also denied there would "be any debate on this site about the causes of 9/11." Yet, in his Journal piece, Tofel wrote: "The International Freedom Center will host debates and note points of view with which you, and I, will disagree."

So which is it? Will the IFC host "debates" — or not? Will it highlight the "root causes" of 9/11 — or not?

Tofel may feel a need to fudge (OK, lie) because of attacks from folks like Debra Burlingame, sister of a pilot of one of the hijacked 9/11 planes. Burlingame charges that "Ground Zero has been stolen right from under our noses." And she's kept the heat on, even appearing on the show Tuesday with Tofel.

Indeed, if Tofel's ruffled feathers weren't obvious enough during the broadcast, they certainly were afterward — when he tapped Burlingame on the shoulder and crowed, "Nice try."

Burlingame says Tofel's tone was snide and condescending. And another of the show's hosts, Brian Kilmeade, thought it so inappropriate, he felt it necessary to tell Tofel so bluntly — prompting onlookers to intervene to head off blows.

But Tofel is just the tip of the iceberg.

The IFC's roster of donors, board members and top staffers — and its muddled mission — invite the worst speculation.

Someone needs to make clear — with deeds, not words — where this monster is headed. And if that can't be done, Gov. Pataki needs to kill it before it's too late.

The morass that is known as the IFC is not going to end nicely for anyone, least of all Gov. Pataki. He's the guy on the hook for the lack of progress at the WTC.

But here's the thing. Gov. Pataki is probably welcoming the dispute over the IFC since it gets the sadly obvious fact that the WTC has not been rebuilt - and is nowhere near being rebuilt for the foreseeable future - off the front page where this travesty belongs.

No permanent memorial is built. No permanent structures have been built. Yes, transportation links have been resurrected, but that is the absolute minimum that had to be accomplished in a short time to ensure that Downtown would not wither on the vine.

So, Governor Pataki informs that we'll be having temporary memorials built until the permanent structure is built.

Does this seem satisfactory to you?

Technorati: World Trade Center, WTC, Pataki.

UPDATE:
NIST has released its 10,000 page report on the WTC collapse and how to improve skyscraper safety. Needless to say, many of the recommendations are common sense - increased and improved fire insulation, wider stairwells, more stairwells, better inter- and intra-building communications, etc.

One thing that some families will latch on to is that the NIST report does not recommend that its improvements be implemented across the board - that is to say that there are no loopholes or exemptions for any buildings built in the US after the recommendations are implemented. Even if the NIST recommendations are adopted by New York City and New York State, the WTC site would be exempt. Some families still hold the Port Authority responsible for the collapse because they believe that the Port Authority cut corners on safety when building the towers, but there is nothing in the reports I've seen that would indicate that the outcomes would have changed.

No one contemplated or understood what would happen if a fully loaded modern aircraft slammed into the towers. The designers didn't have the computers to simulate such an event, and could only say that the building would stand if hit by a smaller jet but no fire/fuel calculations were done.

That wasn't an oversight - it was a limitation of the engineering of the day.

It is my recommendation that the WTC be built to the highest and best standards in the nation, regardless of what the building code requires. The Port Authority should go beyond the call of duty to make this building complex the safest it possibly can.

UPDATE II (6/24/2005 10:24AM EDT):
The Times has a story about how the NIST report suggests that the Towers should have had a 4th staircase in order to meet building codes. I'm not sure which position was correct - the PANY or NIST. One would have to look at existing building codes at the time the towers were approved for construction, not codes that came into effect after that date. It may sound like a bit of semantics, but every building is built to the code in effect when built, unless changes are retroactively applied (such as requiring sprinklers, smoke detectors, fire alarms, etc.) However, even NIST concedes that there is no way to know whether a 4th stairwell in each tower would have made even the slightest difference since it could have been destroyed like five of six in the two towers. The sixth was damaged, but passable.

NIST can only make recommendations. It cannot implement changes. Also, NIST findings cannot be used in a court of law as proof of fault. The NIST report is a purely scientific endeavor to advance the engineering and architectural sciences.