What is the reason given for not making critical information public, and who could possibly find selective release of this data acceptable?
If I am under investigation can I be "quite transparent" with some facts and "not transparent" with other facts? I don't think so.
The closer one looks at any part of this the more questions arise. And the more it stinks of coverup and deception.
(I don't mean to be "off topic"-how else to ask the question?)
The reason constantly given by NIST's lawyers when appeals for FOIA info are heard is that release of the data would 'jeapardise public safety'. When pushed, they go on to suggest that the data could be used by potential terrorists to programme their own computer and use that to discover how to bring down other steelframe highrise buildings.
Many people, including judges hearing the appeals, take that at face value, and with the background of general fear of being accused of aiding terrorists they nod and agree with that contention.
However, if critical thinking skills are applied for a few moments it becomes clear that data on one building that doesnt now exist would be useless to model a totally different building. And if a future terrorist really planned to destroy a 47 story building elsewhere, would they seriously use that data to discover how to place incendiaries to cause fires that would eventually cause global collapse.
Isn't it more likely that they would just arrange for a pretty large explosion either inside or close to that building which wouldn't require them to study data unrelated to their planned attack site before that. And then have a much more certain result than hoping that for the second time in history a fire could be persuaded to cause global collapse.
The reason given for the non release of the data is patent nonsense when examined for a few moments.