Conference Facilitator:  We're almost at the end of our day.  We now have our complete list, and I'm going to go through the list of our two-minute speakers.  We're going to use the same basic process with the two-minute speakers coming up to the front of the room - making their presentation.  I'll have the clock running so they'll know how long they have to go.  The 30 - when they have 30 seconds left, I'll turn on the light so they'll know to wrap up their final statements.

This is the list and this is the order the speakers who will make their presentations.  Number one will be Dan Leschanake (ph).  Number two will be Lorna Brett.  Number three will be Burton Roslyn.  Number four will be Luann Horsman.  Number five will be Michael Trensher.  Number six will be Jack Lynch, who will speak Al Briggenhart.  Number seven will be Arthur Taub.  Number eight will be Alice Lebri.  Number nine will be Gail Dunham.  And number 10 will be James Monday.

Will Dan please come to the podium?

(inaudible)

OK.  Why don't we go ahead to our second speaker, Lorna Brett.

Lorna Brett (ph):  Thank you.  This has been a very informative day.

Briefly I have two minutes, I guess for me the good news is that NIST is a very little known agency, and that's good news to me because from what I know about the process in Washington politics and influence, it's probably - there are probably less career bureaucrats and more technical experts.  But it won't be unknown for long because of this investigation I think that the harsh light of the examiner and the lobbyists will be very interested.

The thing that is - I'm a little concerned about is that NIST is a non-regulatory agency meaning that their good work must be carried forward by legislators and regulatory agencies.  And then I think that means that everyone that's here today representing families and general public needs to be very careful and mindful of that and keep this in our agenda and our thoughts as we go forward and we see the completed study.

I've seen the influence of lobbyists and money in Washington, and I know that there are many good agencies doing good work - doing good studies.  But I think we all know, and this is relevant to what happened on 9/11, that the Gore Commission Report gathered dust and that's very relevant.  It became very relevant on nine-eleven.  That exposed all of the aviation security vulnerabilities.  Basically line by line, the - results of that commission were fought by industry representatives.

Thus far NIST is the only federal-endorsed investigation into nine-eleven because unfortunately we've seen efforts to establish an independent non-partisan commission - sadly and predictably pushed back by partisan politics.  That's why it continues. 

My request and why I came up here today is that as they - as you form the Federal Advisory Committee, I hope that it will be comprised of retired or non-interested parties who are experts and who are not affiliated with any group or trade association that later may end up hiring lobbyists to fight the meaningful change - change that will affect people - protect people and not professional interests.

Thank you.

Conference Facilitator:  Thank you.

As a reminder, let's refrain from applause.  We have a lot of presentations and they're two minutes and we have an awful lot to go.

Burton Roslyn - our next speaker from the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

Burton Roslyn, New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects:  I'd like to thank you for this opportunity.  It's been a very long day.  I will be very brief.

On behalf of the American Institute of Architects, New York Chapter, there are four things that we would like to see come out of the NIST report.  One of them is an increasing standard for the use of fireproofing in our buildings here in New York and throughout the United States.  One is - the second one is a reevaluation of the fire suppression systems that we use in our high-rise buildings.  Obviously when lines are severed, there is no way of getting water to the fire.  We think that is important and we as an organization - the front line professionals in the design of our buildings are very much concerned with how that should be handled.

We also think it's very important that we reevaluate all of our means of egress providing larger means of egress, better means of egress, the issue of remote means of egress is very important and, yes, that has been addressed properly.

More importantly than all of this, we as an organization - as design professionals responsible for life safety are very much concerned that out of this report comes a recommendation for the adoption of a model code to be applied uniformly throughout the United States protecting the life safety of both occupants and first responders.  Thank you.

Conference Facilitator: Thank you.

Our next speaker is Luann Horsman (ph), representing herself.  Luann Horsman (ph)?  All right, we'll move to our next speaker. 

Our next speaker is Michael Trensher, also representing himself.

Michael Trensher (ph):  I'm an architect and I teach at Pratt and represent both the academic and educational (inaudible) professional interests here.  I'd just like to mention that in reading the report, the term architect or architectual seemed to be absent in almost all cases.  And at school, I happen to teach deisgn and material construction among other things. In an attempt to have these things linked together and brought together in some meaningful way.  And so I think it should be more prominent.  I'm afraid that we might have a report that has the benefit of expertise but loses the overall view.  In my understanding the architect is normally responsible for making critical decisions which affect all other subsystems and I wouldn't gather that form this report.

Let me just give you a reference here.  We seem to forget the fact that it was an architectural decision to make two towers of the same footprint - 110 stories high without setbacks, without terraces, without other means of egress than the standard core.  It was an architectural decision, yes affected by real estate, of course, and such concern.  But to have a clear (inaudible) from a perimeter to a core.  This greatly affected the systems that were then later to be selected and designed by the engineers.  It was also an architectural decision to compact the core as much as possible.

So I don't mean to point fingers at architects, but I do mean to say that there is an architectural responsibility that needs to be addressed and that should be brought in too.

Very quickly, I think you need to emphasize how things are really built - not just the way we theoretically think they're built.  And therefore the construction industry and people are really involved with actually how these things look after they're built and this needs to be part of the scope - not simply laboratory tests - really what happened -- The slides that we saw today of existing conditions exist throughout the field.  And I think it ought to be part of the structure of the report.

And lastly, the idea of the structural tube or the core (inaudible) this is a typology structure and therefore whatever is done with the World Trade Center affects other buildings with similar kinds of wind bracing regardless of whether they use trusses or not.  And so I think we ought to look at the problems - the topological problems that have broader references rather than just specific to this particular set of construction details.

Thank you.

Conference Facilitator:  Thank you. 

Our next speaker is Jack Lynch (ph).

Jack Lynch:  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment.

My name is Jack Lynch (ph).  I'm the father of firefighter of Michael Lynch (ph), who lost his life while saving others on 9/11.

I'm glad to see that the New York City Department of Buildings is interested in revising the building code, something that is sorely needed.  It is important though I think to make sure that agencies like the Port Authority and others like that not be allowed to put in variances that will bypass this code that I hope would be established on the investigation.

And just to I'd comment on the remarks of the previous speakers in regard to lack of communication on that day.  It has become very evident that the lack of good communication systems during the rescue effort at the World Trade Center may have contributed to the loss of many lives.

We need to provide emergency personnel with the cutting edge of technology and people in high rise buildings also with good technology systems and it should be done regardless of cost because lives are more important than the cost of these considerations.

My son and 2,823 others lost their lives on 9/11.  I ask you to continue investigations to keep in mind that that history must never be repeated in America again.

I suggest that you interview all the rescue workers, the recovery workers, the construction workers that were down at Ground Zero during the last nine months.  I think it's important even to see especially from the construction workers you will receive important information. 

Mr. Durato Apurado (ph) said that a canon of the ASDE is that public safety is the most important issue and it's a part of their slogan.  I might say that I hope that you will make that your slogan too.  You are dealing with lives here.  Cost should not be an issue.  

Thank you.

Conference Facilitator:  Thank you, Jack.

Our next speaker is Arthur Taub, representing a coalition of residents and merchants.

Let's move to our next speaker.  Our next speaker would be Alice Labrie (ph), representing herself.

Alice Labrie (ph):  My name is Alice Labrie.  I'm here as a concerned citizen and taxpayer from upper Manhattan with a background as a former member of the U.S. Department of State Foreign Service 1985 to '88 in Turkey, Oman, a former resident of Los Angeles, California who experienced several earthquakes, including the 1994 Northridge. 

And, of course, I'm concerned about personal safety and would like to say that it appears to me first and foremost there's a need for self-preparedness and commend our facilitator for pointing out all the exits in this room.

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Service and the Los Angeles Fire Department seminar taught us that rescue workers would not be able to reach all of us and leaving an earthquake bag by the door at their offices and at home with crowbars.  So that bag is going to be reinstituted here in New York.  I would like to suggest or commend that maybe the Los Angeles Fire Department should be consulted to prepare seminars for us here both for residents and for office workers.

When I saw those buildings come down I saw shades of Oklahoma City, so I commend (inaudible) Raines (ph), the executive editor of the "New York Times" for his initial coverage.  I commend Charles Regenhard (ph) for his safety campaign for demanding several investigations, my grateful appreciation to all forms of government for rescuing me, protecting me, for restoring my infrastructure.

And to close I would just like to say that I hope we can go forward in the spirit of cooperation and my thanks to this NIST panel for your service to the United States of America.

Conference Facilitator:  Thank you, Alice.

Our next speaker is Gayle Dunham (ph), president of the National Air Disaster Alliance and Foundation.

Gayle Dunham, National Air Disaster Alliance and Foundation:  Good afternoon.  The National Air Disaster Alliance and Foundation represents family members from over 90 air disasters from as long ago as 55 years to those most recently and certainly including the families of 9/11.  In 1995 a coalition of family members passed the Family Assistance Act to guarantee fair treatment for family members after an aviation disaster.  9/11 was an aviation disaster; it wasn't simply an act of terrorism.  It was a very preventable aviation disaster and it's hard when we learned how easily the events could have been prevented.

But the Family Assistance Act, which was passed in '96, guaranteed fair treatment for family members.  Part of that is an investigation, which is usually handled by the National Transportation Safety Board and a public disclosure of information.

The Safety Board isn't the lead agency.  Shortly after 9/11 the airlines decreed that the Family Assistance Act did not apply to 9/11.  Fortunately, on September 21st, 2002 the National Transportation Safety Board did decree that yes the Family Assistance Act does apply to 9/11, so the family members, the survivors, the victims are all entitled to an investigation and disclosure of information.  So please keep in mind that the NIST study is part of a federal act that we worked very hard to pass.

I don't think people realize we average over one fatal air crash a day in the United States but nothing prepared us for 9/11.  But everyone must realize that there's still the possibility of multiple aviation disasters in any given day.  The airport security measures today are focusing on the 25 to 30 of the largest airports and I ask NIST to consider the 5,000 airports that do exist in the United States.

One other thing that I'd like to bring to mind today was Our Lady of Angels school fire in Chicago many years ago.  I don't know if any of you remember it.  I'm originally from Chicago.  But I think it was Mayor Daly even back then.  The legacy of the Our Lady of Angels school fire was that those 100 children did not die in vain.  The city and state immediately went to work and major safety measure were implemented in all the schools within a year.

I hope that NIST will maybe look at Our Lady of Angels school fire as a legacy for swift action in trying to do the very best we can, because we cannot afford less than the best safety and security in the United States of America.

Conference Facilitator:  Thank you, Gayle.  (Applause.)

Our next speaker is James Mundy (ph), Automatic Fire and Alarm Association.

James Mundy, Automatic Fire and Alarm Association:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  It's always great to be the cleanup batter.  Everyone wants to go home and attitude adjustment hour I'm sure is looming on the horizon, but I do have a few comments I'd like to share with the group here.

First of all, my experience of about 35 years in design installation and maintenance of multiple fire protection systems, I'm presently employed by the Siemens Fire Safety Division and am presently also president of the New York State chapter of the Automatic Fire Alarm Association.

I'd like to thank NIST for their interest and your openness with the public with today's meeting.

I'm just curious if the chairman hadn't indicated how many people would have known how to evacuate this room had such an announcement not been made.  If you tried to leave here during the break there was massive congestion out by the tables and I'm sure fire marshals love things like that.

There is a nationally recognized standard that I suspect that people in this room have never heard.  It's an education situation.  It's also an enforcement problem.

There's an urgency to what's going on here and the previous speaker indicated that.  It's necessary for NIST to move on and have a comprehensive study, but there's some urgency to this as well.  New York City has, for the last 11 years, conducted a study and a code modification to the fire alarm code in New York City, and it has moved at something approaching a sub-glacial speed.  Hopefully NIST can move more quickly than that.

We need to accelerate code changes and improvements on a national basis.  Some of the things that can be done, we can encase systems within the buildings to protect them.  Most of the systems as we understand so far, and the investigation will yield further information, operated as they were supposed to.  But if the fire command station is taken out of operation because it's in the middle of a lobby, and not street accessible to the responding firefighters, it's of little value. 

I've been cut off.  But I'll submit the rest of these things in writing.  I would like to have one closing comment yet though.  With all the improvements that have been made to fire safety in the city, and having watched seven floors of the trade center in 1975, without proper communication, taking almost two hours to be evacuated by a drill conducted by the fire department, numerous enhancements have been made. 

We've improved that significantly.  Yet how do we explain to Sally Regenhard, Monica Gabrielle, or the widow of young firefighter Lee Failing (ph), that those were enough.  So let the report be complete, impartial, comprehensive, properly administrated, with import, and certainly with humanitarian urgency.  Thank you.

Conference Facilitator:  Thank you.  Luanne Horsman (ph).  Our next speaker is Luanne Horsman (ph), representing herself.

Luanne Horsman (ph):  Aside from having proven, as so many mothers have had to throughout the ages, that she could rise to the occasion, and lead us in the right direction, Sally Reganhard has also given testimony to the fact that the world might be very well better served if more women were in command of it.  For no one felt the 9/11 loss more than mothers did, as everyone killed there had a mother, and many other mothers were left to raise small children.

I had to go to work, so I missed many of the speeches, but none could have been more to the point and heartfelt than hers.  The point being that we must no longer beat around the bush about what happened on 9/11. That madmen flying airplanes hit tall buildings is a given, that this act would cause damage to any building goes without saying.  But why were the World Trade Center buildings so inordinately vulnerable is the question we must get to the bottom of. 

Why all of them fell, when only two were hit.  Granted there were several that had to be knocked down, still doesn't seem right.  Especially when a nearby church went unharmed and the American Express building, which was right next to them, as it sizzled, was damaged but it's still standing.  The bottom of those questions must be gotten to, and I know that I read where the structure of the buildings was for economy, but it seems like it was more for greed, because what I saw on PBS it looked as if it was a trampoline stretched across a building with a stairwell surrounded by only sheetrock.  That a window washer was able to bore his way through, it's unbelievable how these were built.

But most important is who was responsible for the shoddy construction of these buildings, and why isn't it being dealt with?  And why is it we hear so little about it?  Dennis Smith (ph), the firefighter said it was made with mafia cement and that the fireproofing was so thin it was in litigation for 20 years, but nobody did anything about it.  Why is it that no criminal investigation of the people who hauled off the steel beams before everyone's eyes on television even, why were, what were they trying to cover up, and who were they doing it for?  People who murder only one person are executed in this country, and yet there seems to be no effort to investigate and bring to justice the people who were hiding the facts for guilty people. 

Why was the Mayor standing by and letting it happen?  He was able to prosecute Leona Helmsley, seventy years old, when she never murdered anyone, and he was strolling around while they were hauling off the evidence.  It seems that this is the most important thing that we should know, because there's an old cliché that a country that doesn't, or a society that doesn't learn from its history is condemned by it.

Conference Facilitator:  Thank you.  And our last speaker is William Rodriguez (ph) from the Victim's Support Group.

William Rodriguez (ph), Victim's Support Group:  My name is William Rodriguez (ph), I'm the last survivor that came out of the North Tower.  I was pulled from the rubble, and I worked in the building for 20 years.  I was the person in charge of all the stairs in the building.  I was the person that had to make sure that everything was clear and clean.  I had my concerns that day, prior, years before, and I actually put complaints against the Port Authority because, for example, there was construction debris on many of the floors. 

There were structural damage on some of the stairs, there were missing door locks on some of the doors, I have pictures over here from the building.  These are the stairs that were not up to code.  And I've been probably in so many meetings asking for changes and code evaluation of the building.  And a criminal investigation, only two organizations, the one from Glen Corbett and the one from Norman Gruner (ph), have approached me to get this important vivid history of what I lived through these last 20 years of complaints and asking for changes on the building itself.

The other thing, the evacuation level, the building, class A building, 110 stories, they had only from three to six evacuation drills a year.  Horrible.  Building with such a turnout of tenants, coming in, coming out constantly, didn't have the amount of training, or did not have the training because probably they came in after the training was done, and they were never prepared to escape.  I think there should be an investigation, I think there should be a re-evaluation of the evacuation technique that they used that day.  Thank you very much.

Conference Facilitator: That concludes our presentations for the day, as far as the public speakers.  I think now is the appropriate time to clap for everyone who put together these excellent presentations.  To wrap-up the session, I'm going to pass for the time to Jack.  Jack is going to wrap-up and talk about the next steps.  Jack?