Josiah Thompson

Thanks so much, Ron, for turning me on to this BBC report. Apparently, NIST is finally going to release its final report. It will be fascinating for all of us who've been working on this to see what NIST says. I know that they stopped their efforts at collection of photos and witness reports years ago. Since some of the most important witness reports and photos were discovered within the last two months, it's likely these never figured in the NIST study. Anyhow, it looks like some fascinating reading is waiting out there for me. Thanks again.

This topic began when I took a look at Professor Fetzer's latest book on 9/11. There is very little in the book on the collapse of WTC7 and what is there has been dealt with in the various posts above. Professor Fetzer has chosen not to reply to the posts above but rather let Jack White make various abortive attempts to deal with the points made. This prompts a final question. Why does Professor Fetzer believe that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolitions as part of a plot by someone (shadowy intelligence agencies, Larry Silverstein and FDNY, persons unknown) to bring down the building. I've attended to the various reasons Professor Fetzer has given for his view in other venues and they are all pretty much beside the point. I'll list them along with the reasons they are not credible and then leave it to Professor Fetzer to tell us why he believes what he apparently believes. (1) WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolitions because the video of its collapse looks like WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolitions. He's right. The video of its collapse does look like a controlled demolition job. Why? Because in a controlled demolition the specialists would have placed cutting charges in the center of the building dropping out the center thus permitting the sides to fold into the center. In this case, the placement of giant trusses necessary to handle the increased load of an expanded building footprint meant that when one failed the center of the building dropped out four to five seconds before the whole building came down. In short, the mechanism of collapse replicated what you would see in controlled demolitions due to the peculiar nature of the building's construction. This is an engineering conclusion which all the various engineering studies of the collapse agree on. (2) Larry Silverstein said in an interview that he talked to "the fire commander" and told him to "pull" it... meaning bring down the building with controlled demolitions. As we've seen, Silverstein never talked with Chief of Department Daniel Nigro or his command staff. Had Silverstein talked with Nigro, Nigro would have paid no heed to the desires of the owner of the building. Nigro's responsibility was solely to public safety and the safety of his men. Nigro issued a "pull-back" order in mid-afternoon when he and his command staff decided that fires in the building would not be fought. Why did Silverstein say what he said? I don't know but here is my guess. After the "pull-back" order was given, someone at FDNY headquarters in Brooklyn decided it would be a good idea to tell the owner of the building that FDNY had decided not to fight fires in the building and to "pull back." He called Silverstein and somehow Silverstein mistranslated this into what he said. (3) The BBC in a live broadcast around 5:00 PM said the building had already collapsed when it was still standing. The BBC announced this from some central studio and then switched to a correspondent who followed up from a position in Manhattan. During the broadcast from the correspondent, she moves to the right and you can see behind her WTC7 still standing. It would appear that the BBC confused word that FDNY had established a "collapse zone" or "pull-back area" around the building in expectation of its collapse with the actual collapse of the building. (4) Fires in WTC7 were only "moderate" (in Fetzer's words) and there was little structural damage to the building. Hence, it should not have collapsed and must have collapsed due to controlled demolitions. As photos and eyewitness statements show, the fires in the building were not "moderate" but severe and growing in intensity and extent throughout the afternoon. Evan has posted a sampling of witness reports and I posted one photo from 12:30 PM showing a small part of what many other photos show. The delicate design of the building and 40,000+ gallons of diesel fuel either in it or under it meant that 7 1/2 hours of unabated fires plus the structural damage (the whole SW corner of the building was destroyed) it suffered meant that its collapse was almost foreordained. Fetzer is simply wrong in what he says about the fires and the structural damage. Are there other reasons why Professor Fetzer believes contolled demolitions brought down WTC7? Give us a break, Professor, and tell us what they are.

First, there are photos which show exactly what the eyewitnesses have described... massive quantities of black smoke roiling out of the lower floors of WTC7 in late afternoon. Whether these photos are among the ones you've seen on the internet, I don't know. Believe me, they exist. Second, the working hypothesis is not that a fuel tank leaked but that a high-pressure emergency generation system spewed fuel oil out on the 5th floor at a pressure of 75 psi. As the temperature rose, this fuel oil would vaporize and ultimately catch fire. You constantly make up a scenario and then state that that scenario could not have brought the building down. And of course you're right. You just chose the wrong scenario. I have in my computer I think 99% of all photos that have appeared on the internet, plus there are numerous videos available. Not a single photo that I am aware of shows a raging out of control fire in Building Seven...just flames in a few rooms and lots of smoke. THERE IS NO SIGN OF A DIESEL FIRE AT GROUND LEVEL IN ANY IMAGE I KNOW OF. Diesel in a big storage tank is a poor fuel... it must be vaporized to become highly combustible. If it were extremely dangerous, do you think they would have designed a building around a diesel storage tank? Jack

No, Mr. Rigby, you're not funny... you're not witty... you're just sad. Like Fetzer, when you lack facts you clutter up the bandwidth with invective and attempts at character assassination. But I have hope for you. Maybe if you watch what adults do here, after awhile you might learn what it's like to carry on a discussion with argument, counter argument, etc. So keep watching what the adults have to say here. You too can learn to be one. Maybe. I accept compliments, but, like most gentlemen, I prefer cash. By the way, just how much are you making out of this little syke-war effort? Anyway, keen as ever to keep you up to speed, here's the latest from our intrepid UPI reporter. And I thought the days of fearless mainstream reportage were gone for ever! Experts are divided over the motivation and purpose of Thompson’s rare flirtation with a near- truth. “Simple incompetence,” one Langley veteran sighed, “and not remotely credible as an alternative explanation.” Others were less charitable, but preferred to remain anonymous given Thompson’s connections: “He’s lost it completely,” commented one such poster, hastily adding “a whole team of firemen, that is.” Nor was this his only significant gaff in the course of the same thread. Elsewhere, he deprived official whitewashers of one important source of fire driving the alleged “spontaneous” collapse favoured by his masters. One lasting consequence of Thompson’s bizarrely ill-considered reintervention in the case is widely bruited: He’ll lose his post as lead investigator in a suit launched against Silverstein. The legal action has been brought as part of a classic CIA wedge-and-flip operation designed to divide 9/11 dissidents from the victims; portray the dissidents as aligned with Silverstein and the bankers; and simultaneously vindicate the establishment’s fiction of collapse through fire and debris damage. “It’s a damn shame,” remarked the same veteran CIA observer, “particularly since he gained such experience of a similar op back in ’67.” If – when – Thompson does lose the job, his second-in-command is universally regarded as certain to step up. Monsieur Closeau is widely admired in powerful circles for his inability to solve a quick crossword, never mind unravel a complex CIA covert operation. UPI, “FBI, Homeland Security raid investigator’s offices in classic locked room mystery,” 5 July 2008, p. anywhere no one will see it.

Fires in WTC7 were fueled by the usual contents of a high-rise office building plus the 40,000+ gallons of diesel fuel that were either in or under the building. You are right that no modern office building has ever come down because of burning wood furnishings. So what is unique about WTC7? How about a negligent design mandated to expand the building footprint by one-third through the use of cantilever trusses? How about an equally negligent design of an emergency generation system which let loose some of those 40,000+ gallons where they could plasticize the trusses? How about seven and one-half hours of fire unimpeded by efforts to put it out or sprinkle it? The point is that when Fetzer is calling the fires in the building "moderate," he's blowing smoke. The photo shown as well as numerous other photos from various angles make this crystal clear. Reports from eyewitnesses make this equally crystal clear. Need anything else be said?

Fetzer writes: "These are excellent comments that appear to be "right on target"! Jack has found a replacement photograph that we will use in the second printing of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY. Thanks to Tink for noticing. But that does not turn modest fires into major infernos nor a controlleddemolition into anything else. Take another look at "This is an Orange" if you have any doubts. He's practicing his special brand of fakery." Well, let's take a look at what Fetzer calls "modest fires." Here's a photo of WTC7 at around 12:30 PM... that's a full five hours before its collapse. All eyewitnesses and photos agree that unabated fires within WTC7 became progressively worse through the afternoon. At 12:30 PM are we looking at "modest fires" or a "major inferno?" You judge. Fetzer just makes up his facts and then argues from what he makes up. http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...hompson/b12.jpg Dear Dr. Thompson, Please know that since, as a young teenager, I read the "Look" magazine number in which Six Seconds in Dallas was excerpted, I have harbored the utmost respect for your groundbreaking work on the assassination of JFK. In regard to the issue at hand, I would make two simple points. 1. My two previous posts on this thread were not written in support of any WTC7 collapse theory. Nor did they address or otherwise seek to confirm, deny, or analyze any conversations or statements with and by Larry Silverstein other than the taped interview in which he makes the "pull it" comment. Thus the relevance to my argument of a Silverstein/Nigro exchange is nil. The focus of my attention was the wtc7lies website page on which are found what I am forced to conclude are intentionally disingenuous "analyses" of the use of the verb to pull when made within the context of controlled demolition terms of art. Period. If your reading of the web page in question differs from mine, by all means share your thoughts. 2. The positioning of the above-reproduced paragraphs from your post gives the erroneous impression that I am the source of the quotation that makes up your initial paragraph. (This other-than-artful construction likely accounts for your confusion regarding my relatively narrowly focused posts.) In fact you are quoting Brian Smith. Regards, Charles

Dear Charles Drago, Thank you for taking the time to articulate your views on the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7. I appreciate your position. With regard to the collapse of WTC7, there is no official government position. FEMA issued a report several years ago which was tentative in the extreme. NIST said it would issue a final report by December 2007 but none was forthcoming. My bet is that NIST is finding the computer modeling of the event to be gigantic in terms of both money and computing power. That's what our own engineers have told us. What this means is that that many parameters of the event are known but establishing details within these parameters may be beyond the capabilities of NIST or any government body. Since litigation concerning the cause and mechanism of collapse has been running for five or six years, additional private resources of considerable size have been brought to the table. If there was any possibility of showing controlled demolition brought down the building, I'd jump on it in a minute. If I could prove anything like that, I would immediately become the hero of the case. But I can't. The hypothesis is not only preposterous but it runs directly counter to all the evidence (both photographic and eyewitness) that we've painstakingly gathered over the years. Again, I appreciate you taking the trouble to offer your always cogent remarks. Regards, Josiah Thompson Dear Dr. Thompson, Please know that since, as a young teenager, I read the "Look" magazine number in which Six Seconds in Dallas was excerpted, I have harbored the utmost respect for your groundbreaking work on the assassination of JFK. In regard to the issue at hand, I would make two simple points. 1. My two previous posts on this thread were not written in support of any WTC7 collapse theory. Nor did they address or otherwise seek to confirm, deny, or analyze any conversations or statements with and by Larry Silverstein other than the taped interview in which he makes the "pull it" comment. Thus the relevance to my argument of a Silverstein/Nigro exchange is nil. The focus of my attention was the wtc7lies website page on which are found what I am forced to conclude are intentionally disingenuous "analyses" of the use of the verb to pull when made within the context of controlled demolition terms of art. Period. If your reading of the web page in question differs from mine, by all means share your thoughts. 2. The positioning of the above-reproduced paragraphs from your post gives the erroneous impression that I am the source of the quotation that makes up your initial paragraph. (This other-than-artful construction likely accounts for your confusion regarding my relatively narrowly focused posts.) In fact you are quoting Brian Smith. Regards, Charles Dear Josiah, You are absolutely right to correct my error. I thank you for doing so. The record must be protected, and every mistake, no matter how slight, must be rectified. I am not an engineer or a demolition expert. In re 9-11: As is so often the case when laymen would consider highly technical subjects in which they enjoy not the slightest meaningful expertise (another example: the medical evidence in the JFK case), I am forced to read as many sober, professional analyses of how the WTC buildings fell as I'm able to access, investigate their respective authors with an eye toward discerning bias, and otherwise utilize whatever skills and instincts I've been able to develop over years of broadly related study (in this case, of deep political phenomena) to process the data and reach conclusions (tentative or otherwise). As I type these words, I am of the informed opinion that the attacks of 9-11 were planned and staged by those powerful political entities who sought a replacement for the Cold War and its revenue streams and control functionalities. Three of the world-historic attacks on political targets which we study on this Forum and elsewhere share a component that, for me, gives the game away. Immediately prior to their respective destructions, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the WTC were stripped of commonly applied security which in all likelihood would have been sufficent to repel the attackers. (Either WTC security was stripped to facilitate the buildings' destruction, or Bin Laden is one lucky S.O.B. to have timed his attack so fortuitously as to coincide with air defense exercises scheduled for that day.) I have argued, most often to no avail, that before we can identify those responsible for these acts, we must first determine how the attacks were effected. To put it simply: We needn't identify the gunmen in Dealey Plaza to prove that there were multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza. We needn't identify those who ordered presidential security stripped in Dallas to prove that security was stripped from the Kennedy motorcade. Once these facts are established, we then can begin processes of elimination and otherwise reverse-engineer the events so as to narrow the list of suspects. (Could LCN have made the JFK motorcade uniquely insecure? Could Al Queda have scheduled NORAD training exercises on 9-11-01?) Another shared aspect of the JFK and the WTC hits: The "best evidence" in both cases was tampered with and given inadequate examinations producing conflicting conclusions which in turn confuse well-meaning investigators, prolong investigations, and give aid and comfort to the perpetrators. Thanks for indulging me to this point. To answer your question: I don't know how WTC 1, 2, and 7 were felled. I have no independent means to verify the thermite/thermate "discoveries" of Dr. Jones or the official USG pancake collapse theory as graphically illustrated in the PBS documentary of a few years ago. If bias toward some sort of controlled demolition as insurance that the buildings would fall after jetliner impacts is to be discerned in my thoughts, it is based upon my contextualizing of the main event within the deep political analyses of Peter Dale Scott (primarily; his COG material is persuasive) and others. As for WTC7: Absent definitive, trustworthy investigation, I simply cannot say. But to my knowledge there is nothing other than an argument from false authority to commend the official USG theory over that of controlled demolition. I hope this is helpful. Best, Charles

Dear Charles Drago, Thank you so very much for straigtening me out! I apologize for confusing what were really the words of Brian Smith with your own very narrowly focused remarks. Given your gracious remarks about "Six Seconds" it is nit-picking of the silliest sort to point out that "Six Seconds" was condensed not in "Look" but in the "Saturday Evening Post." I'd be most interested in your own views on the continuing controversy over what brought the towers down and in particular what brought WTC7 down. I recognize that not everyone has an interest in these matters. After all, I make my living by investigating such things. None the less, I'd be most interested in your own views. Thank you again for clearing up my confusion. Regards, Josiah Thompson Dear Dr. Thompson, Please know that since, as a young teenager, I read the "Look" magazine number in which Six Seconds in Dallas was excerpted, I have harbored the utmost respect for your groundbreaking work on the assassination of JFK. In regard to the issue at hand, I would make two simple points. 1. My two previous posts on this thread were not written in support of any WTC7 collapse theory. Nor did they address or otherwise seek to confirm, deny, or analyze any conversations or statements with and by Larry Silverstein other than the taped interview in which he makes the "pull it" comment. Thus the relevance to my argument of a Silverstein/Nigro exchange is nil. The focus of my attention was the wtc7lies website page on which are found what I am forced to conclude are intentionally disingenuous "analyses" of the use of the verb to pull when made within the context of controlled demolition terms of art. Period. If your reading of the web page in question differs from mine, by all means share your thoughts. 2. The positioning of the above-reproduced paragraphs from your post gives the erroneous impression that I am the source of the quotation that makes up your initial paragraph. (This other-than-artful construction likely accounts for your confusion regarding my relatively narrowly focused posts.) In fact you are quoting Brian Smith. Regards, Charles

Your caption reads, "The official story claims that diesel fuel reservoirs in the building exploded, resulting in fires that brought the building down.." Sorry but that statement is simply, irrevocably wrong! That some unnamed web site lists "fuel tank explosion" as a possible cause only to reject it just doesn't pass muster. Why not just say, "Gee, I guess that was another error. Thanks for telling me about it."? Why again and again do you insist on defending the indefensible instead of simply admitting you were wrong? And the fire you think was on the 9th floor? Want to send it to me for checking or take the chance on being wrong a third time? quote name='Jack White' date='Jul 5 2008, 05:58 AM' post='149060'] Numerous websites mention DIESEL TANK EXPLOSIONS...for instance this one: .......... What Caused Building 7's Collapse? This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure. What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse. People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition. Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios. NIST released a photograph in 2005 showing a large gouge in the lower portion of the southwest corner of Building 7, and its collapse scenario deviates significantly from FEMA's in emphasizing alleged structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. That photograph is notable for its lack of corroboration, and NIST's claims of other regions of damage to the building's south face lack substantiating evidence. Even if NIST's claims about structural damage from North Tower debris were true, it would not begin to explain the precipitous, symmetrical manner in which Building 7 collapsed. Structural damage to the south side -- particularly to the lower stories -- would have made any kind of vertical collapse all the more unlikely. The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by The New York Times in late 2001 and by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study. 1 This idea is also untenable. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second. Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building. Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep. (Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320º F. 2 ) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in high-rise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense. No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple. References 1. Engineers are Baffled Over the Collapse of 7 WTC, New York Times, 11/29/01 [cached] 2. DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS PIERCE TRANSIT DIESEL FUEL, ptbus.pierce.wa.us, [cached] page last modified: 2007-01-25 VERSION 1.64 2007-11-28 ------------- Copyright 2003-07, WTC7.net ------------- fair use notice

My bet is you're thinking of a fire on the 12th floor. If you want to send it to me, I'll tell you if you got it right this time. Actually, there's very little in the book about WTC-7 and what's there is wrong. Mostly the book is filled with windage of a social-political sort. Apparently, you missed the fact that in another of your captions you claim that "the official story claims that the diesel fuel reservoirs in the building exploded" when no one... official or not... ever claimed this. I corrected this error of yours in my first post but you either missed it or chose to ignore it. And I could go on... and on... and on. Why do you and Fetzer continue to produce such sloppy work? The "fault" if any is mine. Jim asked me to do the photo section on a very rush basis after the book was already typeset, and the publisher insisted on a photo section. I hurriedly put together the eight page section. The WTC 7 image I chose was one I had saved several years earlier from a website which had described the red at the bottom of the building as a fire. There are many similar photos showing a small fire in the same location, and I hurriedly made the assumption that the site I saved the image from was correct. The red object is a sculpture by Alexander Calder (see image). Either the text or photo will be modified in the next printing, if any. I will notify Jim of the change. If this is the ONLY fault Professor Thompson can find in Jim's excellent book, we are in good shape indeed, since this is a minor error of the nit-picky kind. I must assume that Professor Thompson could find no errors of greater magnitude than this. Jack I just sent Dr. Fetzer a different photo showing a small fire on the ninth floor. It will replace the other photo in the next printing, expected in the near future. I trust that with the correction of this minor error, the book will now be error-free. If so, this endorsement by Dr. Thompson is extraordinary. Thanks. Jack

"I couldn't have said it better. If Silverstein intended to say that he thought it would be best to remove the firefighters, then he would have said - "Maybe the smartest thing to do would be pull them" or - "...pull them out". And he certainly seems to be saying that the building collapsed as a direct result of their decision to "pull it". Why would Silverstein or officials of the NYFD expect (correctly, if the official explanation is true) the building to collapse due to removing the firefighters? I have heard that the building was "creaking" or otherwise showing signs of having it's structural integrity severely compromised. I can recall only one or two witnesses making this claim. If this was in fact the case, it is incumbent on the NIST and FEMA teams to provide adequate verification. It all looks extremely suspicious to me. I also can't shake the impression that Silverstein was deliberately ambiguous in his video statement. It's almost as if he wants to admit that they intentionally brought the building down, while leaving it open to interpretation that the building fell because they pulled the fire fighters out. If he only mean't to say that they made the decision to remove the fire fighters, then why use such a vague term as "pull it", and why use that term in such a way that suggests that the building collapsed as a result of the decision to "pull it"? It's all very odd to say the least." With all due respect, Charles Drago, I don't think you get the point. Larry Silverstein never talked to "the fire commander" on 9/11. How do we know this? Because the "fire commander," Chief Daniel Nigro, said he never talked to Silverstein. Why did Silverstein say what he said? I don't know but I can guess. Here's my guess. Nigro and his command staff made the decision not to fight fires in the building in the early afternoon. At that point, Nigro established a "pull-back" or collapse zone around WTC7. Nigro never communicated with Silverstein and would not be expected to. My bet is that someone back at FDNY Headquarters at Metrotech in Brooklyn thought it might be a good idea to tell the owner what was going on. That person communicated to Silverstein that a "pull-back" order had been given and somehow this all gets translated into what Silverstein said. But all this nit-picking about what "pull" means misses the silliness of the basic claim. That claim is: Larry Silverstein and the Fire Department of the City of New York conspired together to bring down WTC7 with controlled demolitions. This is not just silly but preposterous... about as likely as a herd of reindeer stampeded into the lobby of WTC7 with dynamite in their antlers which then exploded and brought the building down. Rather than worrying details of what Larry Silverstein meant or didn't mean isn't it more useful to look at the basic facts concerning the collapse of this building? Those facts include a modern design which made possible long spans of open office space, a truss system to carry a 30% larger footprint for the building than was initially envisaged, 40,000+ gallons of diesel fuel either in or under the building and fires which grew in intensity and extent over seven and one-half hours. Why WTC7 collapsed is a question to be answered largely by engineers and fire science professionals. The broad outlines of their answer is contained in the extremely sophisticated reports that are already part of the public record. If one wants to believe that the Bush administration conspired with others to bring this building down, one can believe that. However, it is a kind of belief based on faith and not facts. One doesn't have to be an apologist for the Bush administration to disagree with such a conspiracy theory. One need only be someone who looks for reasonable answers to reasonable questions. I'd always thought that you would count yourself as one of those people.

"What about “the modest fire at street level?” Well, that turns out to be a colorful modernist sculpture in bright orange, yellow and red that had been placed there on the mezzanine level years before 9/11." The photographs showing this to be the case are posted on the other thread from which you drew this quote. Do you still disagree that this is the case? Your familiar nasty tone does not disguise the fact that you just don't get the point: Larry Silverstein never talked to "the fire commander" on 9/11. How do we know this? Because the "fire commander," Chief Daniel Nigro, said he never talked to Silverstein. Why did Silverstein say what he said? I don't know but I can guess. Here's my guess. Nigro and his command staff made the decision not to fight fires in the building in the early afternoon. At that point, Nigro established a "pull-back" or collapse zone around WTC7. Nigro never communicated with Silverstein and would not be expected to. My bet is that someone back at FDNY Headquarters at Metrotech in Brooklyn thought it might be a good idea to tell the owner what was going on. That person communicated to Silverstein that a "pull-back" order had been given and somehow this all gets translated into what Silverstein said. Your silly-ass comments reported from a "Langley veteran" and "veteran CIA observer" are just drivel, the usual attempt at character assassination practiced by you and your pal Fetzer when you have no facts to cite. Josiah Thompson Experts are divided over the motivation and purpose of Thompson’s rare flirtation with a near- truth. “Simple incompetence,” one Langley veteran sighed, “and not remotely credible as an alternative explanation.” Others were less charitable, but preferred to remain anonymous given Thompson’s connections: “He’s lost it completely,” commented one such poster, hastily adding “a whole team of firemen, that is.” Nor was this his only significant gaff in the course of the same thread. Elsewhere, he deprived official whitewashers of one important source of fire driving the alleged “spontaneous” collapse favoured by his masters. One lasting consequence of Thompson’s bizarrely ill-considered reintervention in the case is widely bruited: He’ll lose his post as lead investigator in a suit launched against Silverstein. The legal action has been brought as part of a classic CIA wedge-and-flip operation designed to divide 9/11 dissidents from the victims; portray the dissidents as aligned with Silverstein and the bankers; and simultaneously vindicate the establishment’s fiction of collapse through fire and debris damage. “It’s a damn shame,” remarked the same veteran CIA observer, “particularly since he gained such experience of a similar op back in ’67.” If – when – Thompson does lose the job, his second-in-command is universally regarded as certain to step up. Monsieur Closeau is widely admired in powerful circles for his inability to solve a quick crossword, never mind unravel a complex CIA covert operation.

"How did they correctly guess that Building 7 would collapse when other buildings sustained more damage and had more intense fires and didn't collapse?" You ask a very good question. For example, 90 West Street burned ferociously through most of the day and did not collapse. The Deutsche Bank building suffered far more impact damage than WTC7 and did not collapse. Chief Dan Nigro touched on his reasons in his public statement that I quoted. He mentioned that WTC7 had an open atrium which meant that the building was supported by its central core and four corners. Nigro had been in the building to attend meetings at OEM and distrusted this modern construction. Involved in his decision and that of his command staff not to fight fires in the building that day were other factors: (1) at this time in the day they believed they had lost up to a thousand firemen in the collapse of the towers. (2) the building was empty; all people had been successfully evacuated early in the day. (3) With the rupture of a 20 inch main on Vesey Street, Nigro had no water to fight a fire in a high-rise building. (Water pumped from fireboats in the Hudson could not produce the pressure required to fight a high-rise fire). You are right to call it a "guess" on Nigro's part. No one could know the building would collapse. The decision not to fight fires in the building was based on a cost/benefit analysis.... FDNY had already lost hundreds of firefighters; no one was in the building; they lacked the water they needed to do the job. Had Nigro known what we know now about the building's construction and the 40,000+ gallons of diesel fuel stored in or under it, he would have had all the more reason to choose not to fight fires in the building and establish a "pull-back" or collapse zone around it. But all Nigro knew was that he didn't trust the construction of the building, didn't want to risk more of his firemen's lives and had no water to fight a fire in it. If you want me to answer why WTC7 collapsed and other buildings like 90 West and Deutsche Bank didn't collapse, I'll be pleased to do that. But that question you didn't raise. You did, however, say, "And, it is hard to believe that the building was designed to collapse just like a demolition if one of it's collumn's load bearing capacity was compromised." Let me try to answer your concern here. The building was not designed to collapse this way. The fact that no redundancy was built into its design was a design weakness. By "no redundancy," I mean the fact that the failure of a major structural component would lead to progressive collapse. This is an elementary fact about the design of this building. Why was it designed this way? In the late 60s, the ConEd substation was constructed on the site to provide power to the towers. It was known that the air rights to the site would be sold and that a building would be constructed over the substation. Huge caissons were drilled down to bedrock and constructed through the substation to support any eventual building. However, when WTC7 was built fifteen years later, the footprint of the building was expanded by over 30% to squeeze the last square inch of office space out of the site. The load from the increased size of the building had to be carried back into the original caissons. This was done by the erection of three massive cantilever trusses located on the 5th to 7th floors. If one of these trusses was weakened by fire, the result would be the progressive collapse of the building. This design is illegal in Europe but, oddly enough, is legal in New York City. This design flaw plus the increased span between columns permitted by a change in the building code in 1978 meant that the building was rather delicate. Given unabated fires on many floors plus the diesel fuel load in the lower floors finally brought the building down at 5:21 PM. The failure of a truss made the building collapse in the manner it did and prompted your question. This was not desired but it was a consequence of the design of the building. I have no idea why the BBC reported what it did. NIST has taken such a long time because of the difficulties of computer modeling the complexity of the collapse.

Professor Fetzer has not chosen to reply to my claim that he published a photo in his latest book which was taken months or years before 9/11 with a caption claiming to show that it was taken during the attack on the Twin Towers." The caption to a photo of WTC-7 to be found on page 78 of his book reads: "WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at ground level." The "modest fire at ground level" is in fact a modern sculpture on the promenade level installed years before 9/11. Thanks to a suggestion from Len Colby I've learned how to post photos on "photobucket.com." I hope this works. Below you will find (1) a photo of the page from Fetzer's book, (2) a close-up of the photo of WTC-7 which he published on that page, and (3) an aerial photo taken in 1999 which shows clearly that that he calls "a modest fire at ground level" is really the modern sculpture I mentioned above. http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0003.jpg http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0005.jpg http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...ompson/scan.jpg Since the point is so obvious, it would be expected that Professor Fetzer would admit the error or offer some kind of defense. Josiah Thompson

Well, Professor, you reach a new high of hilarity in Fetzering? Do you really mean to insult the intelligence of all of us by replying to a post about WTC-7 with a clip that never mentions WTC-7? My first point, Professor: Did you really publish in your book a photo of WTC-7 taken months or years before 9/11 with the caption: “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level?” Is the “modest fire at street level” not really a modern sculpture erected on the mezzanine level years earlier? I would include a scan of the photo from page 78 of Fetzer's book as well as an aerial photo taken in 1999 showing the sculpture on the mezzanine level. However, I am limited in attachment space because 953.36 K of my attachment space is listed as used. Why? I haven't posted anything in months. Can anyone tell me what I can do to get more attachment space? Thanks in advance.

Thanks Bill. I think Bugliosi is best handled by some new research on the physical evidence in the Kennedy assassination. And that I'm working on. Tink

Fetzer’s Folly: WTC-7 I had earlier thought that the silliest move made by any editor was Professor’s Fetzer’s decision to include in his book on the Zapruder film photographs of the rain sensors in Dealey Plaza. One of Fetzer’s partners in paranoia, John Costella, claimed these were “listening devices” installed by a shadowy intelligence agency to clandestinely spy on Fetzer and his pals as they prowled Dealey Plaza. Inquiries with the Dallas Department of Parks and Recreations disclosed that these were in fact what they appeared to be... rain sensors to turn off the sprinkling system if it rained. Dallas citizens would not have been happy to see a central area being sprinkled during a downpour thus wasting precious water! I thought this was the silliest move any editor could make until I plunked down my money for Fetzer’s latest tome, The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America. In Jack White’s photo section, Fetzer publishes a photograph of World Trade Center 7 along with the following caption, “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” I’m the lead investigator for the plaintiffs in an $800 million dollar lawsuit against Silverstein Properties, the NYNJ Port Authority and Citigroup which charges negligence in the collapse of the building. When I looked at the photo, I immediately saw that the photo of the undamaged WTC-7 was taken months, if not years, before the attack. Why? Because the south face of the building was shredded with debris from the collapse of the North Tower at 10:29 that morning. What about “the modest fire at street level?” Well, that turns out to be a colorful modernist sculpture in bright orange, yellow and red that had been placed there on the mezzanine level years before 9/11. Further along on the same page additional non-facts are purported: “The official story claims that diesel fuel reservoirs in the building exploded, resulting in fires that brought the building down, even though there is no recorded case of the fire-induced collapse of a large steel-protected building; and only small fires were burning when WTC-7 “collapsed.” No one, official or not, has ever claimed that the diesel fuel in the building “exploded.” There were 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel either in or under the building. What is clear from eyewitness reports and photos is that fuel fed fires erupted to make of the building an inferno. For years, Fetzer has been trading on the interview Larry Silverstein gave a few months after 9/11. In this interview, Silverstein said he talked to “the fire commander” on the afternoon of 9/11. Given the massive loss of life earlier that day, Silverstien said he told the fire commander “to pull it.” Fetzer misinterprets “pull it” to be a term of art in demolition circles meaning “bring down the building with controlled demolitions.” As countless internet sites have already shown, “pull it” in demolition-speak means what you would think it would mean: “attach a cable to a supporting beam and pull it.” Chief of Department Ganci was killed in the collapse of the North Tower. Daniel Nigro took over as Chief of Department and was “the fire commander” at the scene. I’ve talked with Chief Nigro numerous times and knew the claim that he talked to Larry Silverstein was nonsense. I was pleased recently to find that Chief Nigro’s patience was finally exhausted and that he issued a public statement about this. Here it is: Release date: September 23, 2007 Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows: 1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse. 2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7. 3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. 4. Numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. Regards, Dan Nigro Chief of Department FDNY (retired) <www.911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro> Fetzer cites again and again the fact that videotapes of the collapse of WTC-7 look like videotapes of controlled demolitions. He’s right. They do. But why? If demolition specialists wanted to bring down WTC-7 into its footprint, they would have placed cutting charges in the center of the building. These charges would drop out the center of the building and the sides would fold in. This is precisely what we see in videotapes of WTC-7's collapse. First, the structures on the roof drop down with the center and then a global collapse begins four to five seconds later. Why? Because it is clear to all the engineers who have studied the collapse (FEMA, NIST and private parties) that the collapse started in the center of the building. Column 79 on building plans is the point of initial collapse. The fires low-down on the building caused this initial drop and the design of the building turned it into a progressive collapse of the whole structure. There is not a shred of evidence that anything else happened. There were no explosions in the building prior to the collapse and, yes, the OEM office evacuated with everyone else at about 9:30 AM. Ron Ecker urged me to post something here and I am grateful to him for his suggestion. Josiah Thompson

How extremely pleasant it is to be able to agree with Jack White about something. A bit of background and then an observation... In the summer of 1967, I paid Mary Moorman to make her Polaroid photo available to a professional photographer for copying. The photographer used a large format camera which produced a negative just about the same actual size as Moorman's photo. A few years ago (in order to settle a controversy over Moorman's position) I took the negative to a local photo lab and had it drumscanned with the best equipment available. Then I sent CDs of the drumscan to various people and it appeared on the internet. I just looked over the negative and the drumscan of the negative. These may be the most high resolution and accurate copies of the Moorman photo available. Jack is right. They show no indication of the presence of #5 man.

I beg to differ with you, David... although I must first thank you for the kind words. I can’t tell you how pleased I am that not only Kathy Beckett but also you yourself, Dennis Pointing, Bill Miller, Tom Purvis, Pat Speer, Miles Scull, Peter Lemkin, William Kelly and J. Raymond Carroll have chosen to enter this thread and say something supportive. I think that is precisely what should happen when someone tries a “hit piece” like this. I have no idea what Paul Rigby’s motives are or whether he drank Fetzer’s CoolAid about Greer turning around and shooting JFK with a chrome revolver. All I know is that this thread is bizarre and getting more so. I really have much better things to do than defend an appendix from a forty-year-old book. So if this game is to bait Thompson into defending his appendix against silly charges, it ends. I’m not going to play anymore and it will be up to anyone else to deal with Mr. Rigby. Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment. A final point... When each of Mr. Rigby’s claimed “mistakes” was explained as not being a mistake, he just clammed up and didn’t try to defend his claim. He just threw out another claim until that was shot down. I call attention to this kind of “drive-by” form of argument because of what happened to start this whole exchange. With typical modesty, Fetzer announced an epochal “breakthrough.” The Zapruder and Nix films have been altered since they don’t show what Officer James Chaney later told a TV newsman he had done. Fetzer and company failed to their homework. Hence, it was possible to point out rather quickly that the Bell, Altgens, Muchmore, Daniel and McIntire films/photos all back what we see going on in the Nix and Zapruder films and are at odds with what Officer Chaney told a newsman. Hence, if we are to continue to believe that Officer Chaney described what really happened, we now have to believe that five (5) films in addition to the Nix and Zapruder films were phonied up by unknown persons for unknown ends. When Fetzer and company were asked about this... about whether or not this is a necessary consequence of their argument... they just clammed up and disappeared. Therefore, Mr. Rigby appears to be mimicking the argument style of Fetzer and company. Finally, and once again... thanks Kathy! my-goodness, I had no idea research into JFK's assassination, The Warren Commission Report AND The Zapruder Film stopped after the publication of Dr. Thompson's 6 Seconds in Dallas, Kathy? Look, Josiah Thompson, David Lifton and Oliver Stone (whether you believe any of three or not), have done more in bringing attention the conspiracy side of this case, than anyone alive today or any other time, for that matter. The three above are apt and capable defending the entire scope of their work, if YOU have any doubt, ask them... with that said: I guess we can all fold this Ed Forum tent and go home, eh? Is your above patronage (potential bias[es]) part of a mod's job description? Can we get back to the technical aspects regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder film, you know the stuff no one wants to touch? Finally, you may rise off of bended knee now, I'm in the house! LMAO!

Nope, you missed again. "Bunching of shots" refers to which of the shots were bunched together... the first two, the last two, etc. "All shots were very close together" simply refers to them all occurring in a short interval. However, since he gave no estimate of that interval, no indication could be put under that category. Hence, the proper rendition of his report was just as you have it in the chart: no indications under the chart's significant categories and then, under "Remarks," "Sounded unlike rifle fire; shots were very close together." You are having such trouble finding anything in this appendix that can be called a "mistake" that I'll do you a favor. Go read through Case Closed by Gerald Posner. I know Posner thought he had found a couple of what he thought were mistakes in the witness appendix. I don't remember what they were or whether or not they were mistakes. But I feel sorry for you. You just cannot quite find one. So go read Posner. By the way, I never have claimed that my appendix or my book is "impeccable." I imagine there are some mistakes in it. Thus far you've found two typos: "north" for "south" and "last" for "first." If you believe that Greer shot JFK from the driver's seat with a chrome revolver, you really are drinking Fetzer's Cool Aid. He was trying to sell that delusion back in the early nineties. If you really believe that one, it explains a lot. Thompson did not treat all inconvenient eyewitness testimony quite as crassly as that of James N. Crawford for the very good reason that he did not need to. Much of the work had been done for him long before, by fear, the desire to conform, and, in no small measure, the FBI. The latter’s lack of curiosity, to put it no stronger, in the face of some very interesting testimony, remains a thing of wonder. Railway worker George A. Davis, witness number 37, p.257, in Thompson’s impeccable Master List of Assassination Witnesses illustrates both of these points. Here’s Thompson’s summary of Davis’ details in the usual format: Location: RR overpass No. of shots: --- Bunching of shots: --- Direction of sound/shots: --- Total time of shots: --- Date of report: 3/18/64 References: 22H837 Remarks: Sounded unlike rifle fire; shots were very close together This was comparatively subtle stuff. Nothing outright dishonest, you understand, but not quite the full story. The giveaway is in the mislocation of the second observation in the “Remarks” column – “shots were very close together” – which should, by rights, have been placed under the column heading “Bunching of shots.” In shifting this observation into the wrong column, Thompson used up space that should properly have been afforded a more fitting and interesting observation made by Davis. The observation in question is in bold below. The pith of Davis’ statement, as given to FBI SAs Thomas T Trettis & E J Robertson on 17 March 1964: Did Davis really have the sequence in that order – first “guns in the hands of the Secret Service Agents with President Kennedy…” only then did he “slump forward” – or was that an FBI mistake? In the absence of greater clarity, an honest summary would thus resemble this: Location: North end of RR overpass No. of shots: --- Bunching of shots: Very close together Direction of sound/shots: --- Total time of shots: --- Date of report: 3/18/64 References: 22H837 Remarks: Sounded unlike rifle fire; saw guns in the hands of Secret Service agents accompanying President The second observation leads me to one of my own. The great film schism between pro- and anti-alterationists all too often obscures a related and equally profound division – between those who see Secret Service complicity as a given, and those who don’t. Thompson didn’t and still doesn’t; and has lots of films to prove it. Paul

I don't really think I've "abandoned" anything. Pieces of evidence get their importance and keep that importance as the focus shifts to other, more complicated pieces of evidence. The new work on NAA by Randich and Grant show that any attempt to link bullet fragments by trace element composition is fruitless. Basically, that takes NAA off the table. The acoustics is something else entirely and my own bet is that Don Thomas is very close to justifying that evidence. The Zapruder film alteration discussion has proved divisive because of the tactics used and should now be over. The claim failed. Actually, the Dealey Plaza photos can tell us an enormous amount about what happened. They repay close study. So I've noticed, by reading John Kelin's excellent work "Praise From a Future Generation." What happened? And why? In the mid-60's, all the first generation researchers had to do was point to the bullet holes in JFK's clothes to establish the fact of conspiracy. I guess this explanation was too simple for the arm-chair detectives who followed. Tink, would you care to tell us why you abandoned the emphasis on this elegant and irrefutable evidence in favor the the highly technical NAA and acoustics studies, which, after all, require a advanced college degrees to verify?

Pat, please note that "KNOLL" and "TSBD" are general categories used in the chart with a witness's actual words in quotation marks beside them. I never implied nor asserted that Crawford used the word "knoll" so there is no mistake for Rigby to point to. It's clear from Crawford's words that the sound came to him from the general direction of the knoll. Hence, the entry is correct in spite of Rigby's insistence that it isn't. Rigby just misread the chart. This has happened again and again with his claims of mistakes. In any case, thanks for your support. The continued blowing up of non-points into criticism is tiresome. I woul hope not just for me but for all of us.

Dear me, Mr. Rigby, you really should pay attention to quotation marks. In the chart you are so assiduously studying under the column “Direction of sound/shots,” two general categories keep appearing again and again. One is KNOLL and the other is TSBD. Following the assignment of either one of these general categories, you will find next to it a direct quote from the witness. Therefore, in James N. Crawford’s case, the general category was KNOLL: which, in turn, was followed by a direct quote from Crawford: “from down the hill.” The usefulness of this system is that the reader gets a judgment of the general direction from which a witness reports hearing a shot as well as a taste of his actual statement. You offer champagne for anyone who can find the Crawford using the term “KNOLL.” But the offer only shows your inability to read the chart correctly. It is as silly as making the similar offer for anyone who can find Mrs. Robert E. Sanders (TSBD: “building above her”) using the term “TSBD.” Or William H. Shelley (KNOLL: “came from the west”) using the term “KNOLL.” In short, since I never implied nor asserted that Crawford said the shots were coming from the “KNOLL,” you missed the point entirely. Did James Crawford hear shots coming from the general direction of the KNOLL? Let’s see what he says. The quotes all come from you. First off, he is standing on the southeast corner of Elm and Houston Streets. Here’s what an FBI agent says he recalled in an interview in January 1964: “Mr. Crawford watched the President pass in the Presidential limousine turning west onto Elm Street toward the Elm Street Triple Underpass. Mr Crawford estimated that approximately four or five automobiles including the Presidential automobile, of the Presidential motorcade had turned down Elm when Mr Crawford heard the backfiring of an automobile. Mr Crawford believed these sounds came from one of the cars in the front of the Presidential motorcade which was approaching the Triple Underpass.” Later, when he was questioned by Commission Counsel Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission on April 1, 1964: “Mr. Ball: Before I ask you about your report, did you have any impression as to the source of the sound, from what direction the sound came, the sound of the explosions? Mr. Crawford:. Yes; I do. As I mentioned before, the sound, I thought it was a backfire in the cavalcade from down the hill, down the hill toward the underpass.“ Given Crawford’s position at the southeast corner, there can be no doubt that he’s hearing shots from the general direction of the knoll. I’d like to say that this fencing with you has been fun... but I really can’t. And now it’s becoming tiresome and I have real work to do. Since over all these days’ time you’ve been unable to come up with anything significant, I’m just going to figure that you’ve had your chance and I don’t have to deal with you anymore. I find it very revealing that when your criticism is shown to be full of hot air, you don't try to defend it. You just throw up some more mud hoping it will stick on the wall. Guess who pioneered that particular form of argument? 'Bye! Meet yet another king-size rodent: Your attempt to claim James N. Crawford as a "KNOLL" witness. Enjoy! Witness number 34, p.256, in Josiah Thompson’s exceptionally reliable Master List of assassination witnesses is one James N. Crawford. Here’s Thompson’s summary of his details in the familiar format: Location: Corner, Elm/Houston No. of shots: 3 Bunching of shots: 2 & 3 Direction of sound/shots: KNOLL: “From down the hill” Total time of shots: --- Date of report: 1/10/64; 4/1/64 References: Archives, CD 329, p.22; 6H171-174 Remarks: --- This couldn’t be clearer, and was presumably intended to convince by the ever-so subtle deployment of capital letters: Crawford insisted the shots came from the “KNOLL.” One very minor problem: Crawford didn’t, in either of the sources cited, have a word to say about the “KNOLL.” Here’s the proof: Source 1: The title of the first source, “Commission Document 329 – FBI Gemberling Report of 22 January 1964, re: Oswald/Russia/Cuba,” is, it should be noted, something of a misnomer. In fact, the document is dominated by an appended list entitled “Additional Assassination Witnesses,” among them, Crawford. The first part of his statement of Jan 1964 runs as follows: Oh dear: No “KNOLL”! Source 2: Now to the second of Thompson’s sources for Crawford as “KNOLL” exponent. There’s a bottle of champagne to anyone who can locate the word, or, indeed, find the merest hint of the “KNOLL,” from anything offered by Crawford before the Warren Commission three months later: “The testimony of James N. Crawford was taken at 11:15 a.m., on April 1, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.” http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page171.php Crawford’s initial response, then, was that the sounds had emanated from a vehicle at the head of the motorcade. He dismissed the notion because it was unthinkable to him that the Secret Service could be involved. He then looked around and his eye was caught by movement of what seemed to him a human figure at a sixth floor window of the TSBD. And the “KNOLL”? Pure, 100% Thompsonian invention. But then, what's new? Paul

Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. Please understand that the only part of 911 conspiracy thinking that I reject outright is the claim that "controlled demolitions" brought down the two towers and WTC7. All the rest, I just have to say... I don't know. Peter Dale Scott and I have been pals for thirty-five years. Along with Paul Hoch and Russ Stetler we wrote a book together in the late 70s. I saw Peter at the memorial service for a mutual friend two weeks ago and we had a fine talk about 911. I think what you said about the early researchers of the JFK killing was right on target. We did think we could make a genuine breakthrough. Again thanks for your thoughtful comments that put me to thinking.

I think what you say is right and it is a welcome addition to what I said. I had in mind particularly the quite wonderful friendship I had with Sylvia Meagher, a friendship which lasted through all the petty feuds of the late 60s and 70s,right up to the time of her much too young death. Vince Salandria and I were friends for a time until we started to disagree about the interpretation of evidence. What a surprise? I never had any contact with Weisberg but I heard he was kind of prickly. Mary Ferrell and I were pals. What is different now, I think, is the way ideology trumps evidentiary matters and the concomitant division into different tribes. Earlier, one might disagree over evidence but one didn't fall into one tribe or another. But thank you for the correct and very welcome adjustment to what I said. I think you're very right indeed.