Court Denies Access To
Firefighter's 911 WTC Opinions

From John Kaminski <>
From Sallie <>

Subject: Court's decision denying access to firefighters' opinions & recommendations - only their expressions of feelings can be released !
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004
Alex Jones <> now on radio is playing clips of Silverstein owner of WTC while on TV with WT7, said "Pull the building" which means bring it down, and even said there would be a terrible loss of life. This is when the Bldg 7 collapsed. It was also in a documentary on PBS in Sept. 2001.
Then Dan Rather comes on and says it looks like "well placed dynamite." The only reason the firefighters went in the building is because they knew a building like (concrete and steel) that has been safe, and some hotels have been on fire for days. They reported the fires were out.
Why was FEMA arresting people 2 days later with just little film cameras? 9-11 was the biggest hoax ever! They have just classified documents from Pearl Harbor. I can't find the "Operation Northwood's Document" anywhere on the Net even in the Way Back Machine, which was a WTC scenario...hummm. Any one having it please send it to me. I prefer the Adobe version with a copy of the document.
They won't even give us access to the tapes, probably because the bombs going off can be heard in the background. The firefighters were told by the FBI not to mention it, that it was a matter of National Security. Many were taken to Bellevue, need I say more. I told everyone, there was a mini-nuke set off and a short 14 day radiation life. The planes were only a diversion, perhaps unmanned in order to make those impossible maneuvers to hit the WTC, and no debris was found at the Pentagon. Seismographs went off the charts when the planes hit the WTC, and those building imploded. FEMA was there the night before and the media was ready. Tom Brokaw stayed over and was in a business suit the BRIGHT AND EARLY the next morning!
Those firemen do not just have a cough, but Cancer from the radiation, and many of them will lose their lives. I hope every family member orders an autopsy. But if they really want to cover it up, they will just say COPD a generic diagnosis, covering all their bases.
----- Original Message -----
From: <>Dick Eastman
To: <>Quigs Fight
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:51 AM
Subject: Court's decision denying access to firefighters' opinions & recommendations -- only their expressions of feelings can be released!!!!!
Soula Culver forwards an item from <>
Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision denying the press' right to access the complete oral histories/interviews taken of firefighters' and other workers about 9/11 as well as access to phonecalls made to 911 on that day. Before the records of the oral histories are released to the press, all mention of the opinions and
recommendations of those interviewed will be deleted first, so the press will only get the interviewees' "personal expressions of feelings". In other words, if a firefighter who was interviewed said, "I heard what sounded like explosions and I think it was bombs that took down those towers, it was all so horrible", the press will merely get the portion that says: "it was all so horrible". Additionally, transcripts of tapes of the calls that people made to 911 on that day will not be released at all because the Court said they would invade the privacy of the surviving families - even though surviving family members indicated to the Court that they waived such rights to privacy. There is one higher court in New York that this decision could be appealed to, the Court of Appeals, but I have seen no reports on whether the New York Times plans on appealing it. These same records will not even make it to the 9-11 Commission without deletions. From what I remember, the deal the Commission made with NYC is that the corrupt Commissioners will be able to view the records in NYC in their entirety but only be able to take back redacted portions and without names of people interviewed, etc., and of course we can't count on the Commission to release to the public even the redacted portions of records they receive. -- Angie
Matter of New York Times Co. v City of New York Fire Dept.
2004 NYSlipOp 00091
Decided on January 8, 2004
Appellate Division, First Department
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in
the Official Reports.
Decided on January 8, 2004
Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner, Gonzalez, JJ.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in
the printed Official Reports.
In re The New York Times Company, et al.,
City of New York Fire Department, Respondent-Appellant-Respondent,
Catherine T. Regenhard, et al., Petitioners-Intervenors-
David E. McCraw
John Hogrogian
Norman Siegel
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered February 13, 2003, which, in an article 78 proceeding brought by a newspaper and a journalist against the New York City Fire Department challenging respondent Fire Department's denial of petitioners' Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for transcripts of interviews that
respondent conducted of its employees (oral histories) concerning their activities at the World Trade Center on September ll, 2001 (9/11), and for audio tapes and transcripts of 911 calls made on 9/11, (1) denied the motion of nine family members of persons who died on 9/11 for leave to intervene as petitioners (Family Members), and (2) directed disclosure of
the oral histories albeit redacted to delete the employees' personal expressions of feelings, opinions and recommendations, and (3) directed disclosure of the 911 tapes and transcripts albeit redacted to delete the opinions and recommendations of respondent's employees, and further redacted to delete the words of 911 callers other than those related to the Family Members, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to intervene, and to direct disclosure of respondent's employees' personal expressions of feeling contained in the oral histories, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The motion to intervene should not have been denied simply because the Family Members did not file FOIL requests and therefore are not "person[s] denied access to a record in an appeal determination" under Public Officers ? 89(4)(b). Certainly, the Family Members are interested persons under CPLR 7802(d) to the extent respondent denied disclosure on the basis of the privacy rights of close family relatives of 9/11 victims. Moreover, although the IAS court purported merely to grant the Family Members permission to appear as amici curiae, it effectively accorded them party status by granting them substantive relief in the form of enforcing their desire to waive any right of privacy that respondent was asserting on their behalf. We also note that petitioners support intervention, and that respondent's briefs on appeal do not address the issue.
The IAS court correctly held that the material respondent provided to the federal government as relevant to its criminal investigation and prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui should be disclosed, even if it constituted records "compiled for law enforcement purposes" under Public Officers Law ? 87(2)(e) (see John Doe Agency v John Doe Corp., 493 US
146), since respondent did not meet its burden of showing that such disclosure would in fact interfere [*2]with the Moussaoui prosecution or deny him a fair trial. However, substantial portions of those documents should be redacted as falling within FOIL's exception for intra-agency materials (Public Officers Law ? 87[2][g]), namely, the portions of the
oral histories containing the opinions and recommendations of those interviewed, and the portions of the 911 tapes containing the opinions and recommendations of the dispatchers and other of respondent's personnel. Such opinions and recommendations are to be distinguished from factual material, which respondent concedes must be disclosed.
Not falling within the intra-agency exception are the personal expressions of feelings contained in the oral histories, and we accordingly modify to direct disclosure of such expressions. That such expressions do not fit within any of the four exceptions to the intra-agency exemption does not by itself establish that such expressions are intra-agency material. Nor
do such expressions, or the words of respondent's personnel in the 911 tapes, fall within FOIL's personal privacy exemption (Public Officers Law ? 87[2][b], ? 89[2][b][iv]). However, concerning the tapes, the IAS court correctly held that the personal privacy exemption does apply to the words of the callers. Disclosure of the highly personal expressions of persons
who were facing imminent death, expressing fear and panic, would be hurtful to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities who is a survivor of someone who made a 911 call before dying (see Matter of Empire Realty Corp. v New York State Div. of Lottery, 230 AD2d 270, 273). The anguish of these relatives, as well as the callers who survived the attack, outweighs the public interest in disclosure of these words, which would shed little light on public issues.




This Site Served by TheHostPros