FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

Now, in keeping with the call for more rigid enforcement of the rules:

1. Please take any further complaints about moderators to the complaints thread; off-topic posts will be MOVED (not deleted) to an appropriate thread.

2. Len - Do NOT quote from a private communication UNLESS all parties have agreed. If you feel that the content of a PM is relevant and needs to be revealed, speak to John or Andy; they will make a decision on it. This includes signature lines. First & final warning on the matter.

Thank you.

Replied to to here

[Josiah Thompson]

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

[William Kelly]

Yo! Tink,

Glad to see you are keeping a full court press on Uncle Fetzer.

Do you think you could keep up with Bugloisi, Esq., and take it to another level?

Thanks,

BK

[Josiah Thompson]

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

Yo! Tink,

Glad to see you are keeping a full court press on Uncle Fetzer.

Do you think you could keep up with Bugloisi, Esq., and take it to another level?

Thanks,

BK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Visit http://www.youtube.com/911scholars and view "This is an Orange".

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

[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.

Visit http://www.youtube.com/911scholars and view "This is an Orange".

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

[Brian Smith]

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? What are the odds that the BBC would announce that the building had already fallen, twenty minutes before it did, if it really did fall due to random events? 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. Why did it take the NIST team almost seven years to make this astonishing discovery if it were so self evident? I am no engineer, but it sounds like bull to me.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Brian Smith

[Evan Burton]

Brian,

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

[Brian Smith]

Brian,

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

I will check it out more thoroughly this weekend when I have more time. From my initial perusal, it looks like a lot of intentional framing of debate through distortion and omission. Quite a bit of ad hominem too.

[Charles Drago]

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.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Ron Ecker]

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.

I did a web study of the use of the term “to pull” a couple of years ago. Without going back and digging up the references and links, the following is a summation of what I found.

The term “to pull” has been used even by experts in conjunction with controlled demolition, even though it is not technically correct. In almost all cases, demolitions people quoted as using “pull” are referring to pulling down buildings with cables (or possibly other means). But in the Pacific Palisades description the term “to pull” is expressly used in describing controlled demolition: “The weight of the structure will begin to pull the building down in a controlled direction.” There is also a “pull” quote about cables being used inside during a controlled demolition (“to pull the structure in on itself in the implosion”). This shows that the term can be loosely used (incorrectly used, if you will) in reference to controlled demolition even within the demolition industry.

IMO this reinforces the likelihood that Silverstein loosely or “incorrectly” used the term in reference to controlled demolition. Silverstein is a real estate mogul, not a demolitions man, but given his line of work I'm sure he may have heard the term "pull" used in demolishing buildings. So Silverstein may have used the term incorrectly, but the indisputable fact is that he used it. And he did not use it as in "pull them," "pull them out," or "pull them from the building," if that was his intent, but he said "pull IT." His statement also gives the impression that the building came down right after the decision was made to "pull it." We know from the witness statements that the firefighters were pulled (oops, I said pulled!) from the building hours before it collapsed. But regardless of the time frame, the meaning of Silverstein's statement seems clear to me. He quoted himself as saying, “We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” Then he said, “And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” To me that can clearly be translated as "They made that decision to pull and then we watched the result of that decision" (i.e. they made the building collapse).

[Brian Smith]

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.

I did a web study of the use of the term “to pull” a couple of years ago. Without going back and digging up the references and links, the following is a summation of what I found.

The term “to pull” has been used even by experts in conjunction with controlled demolition, even though it is not technically correct. In almost all cases, demolitions people quoted as using “pull” are referring to pulling down buildings with cables (or possibly other means). But in the Pacific Palisades description the term “to pull” is expressly used in describing controlled demolition: “The weight of the structure will begin to pull the building down in a controlled direction.” There is also a “pull” quote about cables being used inside during a controlled demolition (“to pull the structure in on itself in the implosion”). This shows that the term can be loosely used (incorrectly used, if you will) in reference to controlled demolition even within the demolition industry.

IMO this reinforces the likelihood that Silverstein loosely or “incorrectly” used the term in reference to controlled demolition. Silverstein is a real estate mogul, not a demolitions man, but given his line of work I'm sure he may have heard the term "pull" used in demolishing buildings. So Silverstein may have used the term incorrectly, but the indisputable fact is that he used it. And he did not use it as in "pull them," "pull them out," or "pull them from the building," if that was his intent, but he said "pull IT." His statement also gives the impression that the building came down right after the decision was made to "pull it." We know from the witness statements that the firefighters were pulled (oops, I said pulled!) from the building hours before it collapsed. But regardless of the time frame, the meaning of Silverstein's statement seems clear to me. He quoted himself as saying, “We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” Then he said, “And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” To me that can clearly be translated as "They made that decision to pull and then we watched the result of that decision" (i.e. they made the building collapse).

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.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Brian Smith

[Charles Drago]

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.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Paul Rigby]

UPI, “Tinkering with the official fictions,” 4 July 2008, p.1:

Josiah Thompson, the discredited one-time lead salesman for the fraudulent Zapruder film, today conceded that Larry Silverstein did indeed mean “collapse the tower deliberately” when he remarked “pull it.”

The admission came in the opening post of yet another Thompsonian thread devoted to his obsessive pursuit of Professor James Fetzer, the prominent 9/11 and Zapruder film dissident. It was all the more unexpected given Thompson’s presumed intention to debunk, not reinforce, conspiratorial interpretations of Silverstein’s shocking confession:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Len Colby]

The justification for Paul starting a new thread rather than posting on the other one would seem to be his own vanity. His dribble (and mine and any subsequent replies) should be moved to Tink's thread so as not to split the discussion.

Paul I missed where Tink'conceded that Larry Silverstein did indeed mean “collapse the tower deliberately” when he remarked “pull it”' and made some other supposed gaff. Oh great one please enlighten mere mortals like me who don't share your great brilliance! and explain what you where talking about.