Charles Drago

Quoting Matthew Lewis:

"It is possible that the motorcade route had to be coordinated, the plane was still being fueled, security had to be coordinated, etc. Has anybody ever asked the Secret Service about this? All I ever see is "armchair-quarterbacking" about how they shouldn't have sat there for x amount of time."

The so-called president of the United States, the so-called commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, has been informed that his country is under attack. He exhibits not the slightest indication of basic human curiosity, let alone words and actions commonly expected from a national leader who has just learned that his people are being killed by armed enemy forces, and instead sits, sullen and uncommunicative, as events unfold.

And you seek to explain away such dereliction of duty? Such other-than-human reponse?

And you accuse others of armchair quarterbacking???

Get off your recliner and stretch, for God's sake. The blood has drained from your cranium.

From the final paragraph of In the Electric Mist with Confederate Dead, by James Lee Burke.

I used this passage to conclude my eulogy for George Michael Evica.

“Down the canyon, smoke from meat fires drifted through the cedar and mesquite trees, and if I squinted my eyes in the sun’s setting, I could almost pretend that Spanish soldiers in silver chest armor and bladed helmets or a long-dead race of hunters were encamped on those hillsides. Or maybe even old compatriots in butternut brown wending their way in and out of history – gallant, Arthurian, their canister-ripped colors unfurled in the roiling smoke, the fatal light in their faces a reminder that the contest is never quite over, the field never quite ours.”

Thank you, Stephen, for convening this revival meeting.

(And thanks to Jack for the post you quote.)

Would you consider re-posting on a new, dedicated thread?

Charles

"Goodbye (She Quietly Says)"

Bob Guadio and Jake Holmes

sung by Frank Sinatra on Watertown

There is no great big ending,

No sunset in the sky,

There is no string ensemble

And she doesn't even cry,

And just as I begin to say

That we should make another try,

She reaches out across the table,

looks at me

and quietly says good-bye

There is no big explosion,

No tempest in the tea,

The world does not stop turning 'round,

There's no big tragedy,

Sitting in a coffee shop

With cheesecake and some apple pie,

She reaches out across the table,

looks at me

and quietly says good-bye

Ahhh ... But then again, tales of concocted alien technology serving as cover stories for the testing of advanced terrestrial craft would, in the agregate, amount to the perfect cover story for ... alien visitations.

Might there be a third alternative?

And indeed, since the facts about advanced Nazi aircraft has become publicly known in recent ears, so too has sprung up stories claiming that the Nazi advances ere based on reverse engineering of downed alien craft.

To my ear this s simply the old triple cross trick in action, that, as we know, operates advantageously in military areas one wishes to wrap firmly in secrecy... Churchill's old saw that: "truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

What both sides of the argument can agree on is that something real resides behind all the smoke and mirrors that blanket the UFO subject. To my mind that is about as close as we can get.

I would need hard and indisputable evidence of alien involvement to shift my opinion -- that I have already shifted once in my life. I have gone from convert to doubting thomas. This shift was based solely on the accumulated evidence now available.

Having said all that I am open to a "third alternative" which I assume Charles, dwells within Vallee's "Passport to Magonia"?

This option has the advantage of combining, in theory anyway, the Nazi Scharze Sonne activities to "other-world" material manifestations, plus the design and manufacture of man made aircraft drawn from the very peculiar dynamics of Scharze Sonne philosophy. That road is highly complex and may well be far more terrifying and, therefore, sufficient, perhaps even compelling reason, to cloak it behind a bodyguard of lies.

Yup.

Ahhh ... But then again, tales of concocted alien technology serving as cover stories for the testing of advanced terrestrial craft would, in the agregate, amount to the perfect cover story for ... alien visitations.

Might there be a third alternative?

You may well be correct in your opinion about the overall responsibility for 9/11.

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.

Best,

Charles

Josiah,

If I am correct, then all bets -- including the one you've placed on Nigro -- are off.

Charles

Greg,

George Michael's papers ultimately will reside in a fully accessible archive.

Beyond this simple declaration of fact, there is little I am able to add at this time.

Your confidence in the ability and willingness of the papers' custodians to follow through on George Michael's wishes is beyond my control and none of my concern.

Charles

Charles,

You are indeed, a gifted writer. Perhaps I should have said no easy access. That is within your control, but also none of my concern.

Which is why I said "cool".

I have no wish to be collateral damage, caught in the exchanges between you and Bill. You both outgun me as wordsmiths.

But for the sake of all cards being laid out:

I did indeed, defend GME privately, and would do the same publicly. I know at least a little about what lengths he took to write his book.

But the fact is, he did use some of my material from this forum. That's more than fine with me. I have stated a number of times why I post my research is in the hope that others will pick it up and run with it. GME did, as have others. What does concern me is that he did not cite me as the source. That's nothing to do with ego - readers need to know the correct sources so that they can be properly evaluated. When an attempt was made to bring this to his attention, he added (what was to me, an embarrassingly glowing) mention of my work, but fell short of actually naming it is a source.

Bill,

I appreciate greatly your faith in what I do.

The reason I wanted access to GME's papers is simply that I'm confident they will contain leads that were not followed for whatever reason, or simply missed. Hopefully those who get the chance to go through it all will pick those up.

Greg,

Like George Michael, I respect your work and otherwise acknowledge its significance to our shared struggles for truth and justice.

My issues with Bill relate to what I read as his unfair, inaccurate characterizations of ACA in particular and the larger Evica oeuvre in general.

Bill and I have exchanged PMs, and I think it is safe to say that we've reached a peaceful accord.

I reserve the right to speak for George Michael when what I know to be unfair assessments of his work are published here or anywhere else. The fact that I know Bill to be one of the good guys and, in many ways, a kindred spirit does not relieve me of my duty to my friend, mentor, and comrade.

As far as your own interests are concerned, all I can do is give my assurance yet again that, in due course, you and all other researchers will have access to the Evica archives.

I might add that you have no way whatsoever of knowing what is or is not "within my control" vis a vis George Michael's holdings.

Sincerely,

Charles

(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.

Josiah,

I'm writing to seek clarification on two points.

1. In both the post excerpted above and in an earlier offering ("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." [emphasis added]), you indicate that, in order to reconcile conflicts in the accounts of Nigro and Silverstein, you simply have chosen to accept the former at his word and to resort to guesswork to account for what I assume you would characterize as the latter's misstatements.

Why?

2. Is there support for your hypothesis regarding what you term Silverstein's "mistranslation" of "pull back" into "pull it"? Forgive me, but you seem to be grasping at straws here. As am I, you may argue, when I note that, having heard Silverstein's comment scores of times and taken note of his inflections, tone, body language, and overall command of the English language, I can state that there is nothing in my experience of human cognition and behavior to support the likelihood of a "back" to "it" metamorphosis by this speaker under the circumstances at hand.

I might add that even if the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought about by nothing other than the impacts of two jetliners, there remains sufficient reason to suggest that, as I previously wrote, "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."

In other words, I have no pressing need to believe that controlled demolition took place at the WTC on 9-11. Like you, I am searching for the truth.

Best,

Charles

George Michael was a very kind man. I am better for having known him.

Jack

Dear Jack,

George Michael counseled me to seek you out in times of need -- especially when the need was for a trustworthy ally.

I'm aware of the personal kindnesses he extended to you; they were typical of what flowed from that noble heart.

On behalf of his family, I thank you for your brief, simple, and eloquent testimonial.

Respectfully,

Charles

Bill,

I respect the honest manner in which you describe your experiences and feelings related to George Michael.

My own informed take on the manner in which G.M. chose to share information conflicts with your own. I am not apologizing for his methods when I state that they were well reasoned and necessary.

I might add that scores and scores of his students and colleagues will attest to the selfless manners in which he shared his thoughts and the works they generted.

I won't ask to learn more of your work related to ASC; rather, I'll wait until you're ready to publish as I anticipate important additions to the efforts to effect justice.

Be well,

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

"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.

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

Not so good for you, Bill.

You may "maintain" that "most" of George Michael's work was "taken from previously published books." But you have not, and in fact cannot demonstrate the validity of such a claim and its implicit charge of plagiarism.

If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. If you're wrong, demonstrate Evica-like levels of courage and honor and say so.

As is the case with Greg, your mere beliefs concerning the value and integrity of my friend and his work are, to quote one of our favorite authors, "of as little account as sparrows' tears."

And We are All Mortal and A Certain Arrogance, along with the remainder of George Michael's oeuvre, stand on their own merits. Those merits are immense -- and not just in comparison to the work of those who would diminish them.

I may be wrong, Bill, but I have reason to suspect that your animadversions concerning George Michael and all he contributed to the search for truth and justic may stem from his less-than-cordial relations with COPA leaders and his affiliations with JFK Lancer.

Forgive me if I'm off-base here; it's just that I'm hard-pressed to account for such wrong-headed hostility emenating from a gentleman and scholar for whom I continue to hold affection and respect.

As for Greg's work: We'll just have to reserve judgment until his first book is published.

Charles

"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.

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

Thanks Charles and Dixie.

Despite how it may have looked, I wasn't fishing for compliments - though an ulterior - and somewhat selfish - motive certainly existed.

Simply put, I'd like access to GME's papers. Nothing Charles has said in the past or now gives me any confidence I will have it.

Cool.

Greg,

George Michael's papers ultimately will reside in a fully accessible archive.

Beyond this simple declaration of fact, there is little I am able to add at this time.

Your confidence in the ability and willingness of the papers' custodians to follow through on George Michael's wishes is beyond my control and none of my concern.

Charles

Greg,

I can assure you that both Alycia Evica and I are committed to maintaining George Michael's own commitments to intellectual honesty and academic integrity.

The process of cataloging and storing his archives is ongoing, and the community of which he was -- and, I submit, remains -- a proud and generous member will enjoy access to that work sooner rather than later.

For the record, George Michael spoke to me once of your endeavors. It was toward the end, but during a period of absolute lucidity. He described your research as "valuable" and "moving down the same dark roads" as much of his own.

I hope this brief message is of some value to you.

Best,

Charles

One more comment -- but first many thanks to Ron Ecker for his invaluable clarification.

I no longer harbor any doubt that the intent of the wtc7lies author(s) responsible for the "pull" material was to mislead readers.

Accordingly, those defenders of the official United States government 9-11 conspiracy theory are revealed to be Liars -- as opposed to Truthers, of course.

We might also note that the name they chose for their website neatly describes the content that originates with them and their minions.

Fun doing business with you.

Brian,

Have a read of this material, and see if it changes your mind.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/%22pull%22...htersfromdanger

In the references cited at the above link, how many times are forms of the verb "to pull" followed by the pronoun "it"?

Other than in Silverstein's comment, that is: "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

The answer: zero.

My mind is open; show me examples of common usage of the term "pull it" to reference the removal of emergency personnel from a dangerous environment. I can imagine that such usage might take place when referencing a group/team/squadron, but Silverstein gives no indication of which I'm aware that he is doing so.

As it stands, the "argument" posted on the referenced wtc7lies link seems rather disingenuous -- to be charitable.

On the other hand: Can any of our correspondents document common, term-of-art usage of "pull it" to mean bring down a building by controlled demolition? The wtc7lies writer(s) claim to have found no such examples, but their polemic cannot possibly be described as reflecting fair and impartial perspectives.

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

Nobody loves me but my mama,

And she could be jivin', too

B.B. King

Jan,

I've read the story.

There is a book-length analysis of the film that I purchased some years ago in London. I don't know if it ever was available in the States. I'll try to find it and provide details for those interested.

Hauer's reading of his own funeral oration is inspired. Dig the pause between "time" and "like" ... it is Michelangelo's space between the fingers of God and Adam.

Charles

Two moments in films brought to mind by Jan and that I somehow left off my list.

"Roy," the replicant in Blade Runner, sits in his death scene with a previously unseen white dove in his grasp. "I've seen things," he tells "Decker" (Harrison Ford). And then this artificial life form makes the leap to soul: He makes an analogy, he offers a total greater than the sum of its parts -- an impossibility for a machine. "Roy" is transcendent.

All that he has seen, "Roy" tells us, is gone now ... "Like tears in rain."

Time to die.

The dove, his soul, is released into the clouds. Spectacular!

Blade Runner is at the pinnacle of science fiction achievement.

Then there's that moment in Samuel Fuller's The Big Red One in which Lee Marvin, playing the seasoned sargeant of a platoon of too young WWII GIs in Italy, comforts a dying member of his charges. "Did I kill the man who killed me?" asks the fading soldier.

And Marvin, staring into his eyes, delivers the best single-word line I've ever heard in film.

"Yes."

Adjective fail to describe the power and subtext of Marvin's magnificent delivery.

Charlie

We're dancing in the dark

Gacela of the Dark Death

by Federico García Lorca

I want to sleep the dream of the apples,

to withdraw from the tumult of cemetries.

I want to sleep the dream of that child

who wanted to cut his heart on the high seas.

I don't want to hear again that the dead do not lose their blood,

that the putrid mouth goes on asking for water.

I don't want to learn of the tortures of the grass,

nor of the moon with a serpent's mouth

that labors before dawn.

I want to sleep awhile,

awhile, a minute, a century;

but all must know that I have not died;

that there is a stable of gold in my lips;

that I am the small friend of the West wing;

that I am the intense shadows of my tears.

Cover me at dawn with a veil,

because dawn will throw fistfuls of ants at me,

and wet with hard water my shoes

so that the pincers of the scorpion slide.

For I want to sleep the dream of the apples,

to learn a lament that will cleanse me to earth;

for I want to live with that dark child

who wanted to cut his heart on the high seas.

From jazz and the American Popular Songbook (in no particular order of genre or preference):

Cole Porter

Harold Arlen

George Gershwin and Ira Gershwin

Richard Rodgers

Lorenz Hart

Oscar Hammerstein

Duke Ellington

Wayne Shorter

Horace Silver

Thad Jones

Pepper Adams

Jimmy van Heusen

Sammy Cahn (full disclosure: this lyricist, who put more words in Frank Sinatra's mouth than any other writer, was a dear and close friend)

Jule Styne

Tommy Wolfe

Fran Landesman

Henry Nemo (for one tune: "'Tis Autumn")

"Yip" Harburg ("Over the Rainbow")

For those interested in the subject, Alec Wilder's American Popular Song: The Great Innovators, 1900-1950is the most comprehensive and satisfying reference volume extant.