FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Josiah Thompson]

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

[Charles Drago]

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

Edited July 5, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Josiah Thompson]

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 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

[Josiah Thompson]

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

"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

Edited July 5, 2008 by Josiah Thompson

[Mike Williams]

[Jack White]

Must be the WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE theory.

I see lots of smoke, no raging inferno. What's fueling the

smoke in a steel and concrete building? Desks, chairs, carpets?

No modern skyscraper has ever before fallen because of

interior wood furnishings burning. Smoke does not = fire.

In fact, smoke indicates INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION, thus

an inefficient fire. A wood fire cannot melt steel beams.

Much of the smoke seems to be coming from Building Six

at the right.

Jack

Edited July 5, 2008 by Jack White

[Josiah Thompson]

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?

Must be the WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE theory.

I see lots of smoke, no raging inferno. What's fueling the

smoke in a steel and concrete building? Desks, chairs, carpets?

No modern skyscraper has ever before fallen because of

interior wood furnishings burning. Smoke does not = fire.

In fact, smoke indicates INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION, thus

an inefficient fire. A wood fire cannot melt steel beams.

Much of the smoke seems to be coming from Building Six

at the right.

Jack

[Paul Rigby]

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.

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!

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.

UPI, “FBI, Homeland Security raid investigator’s offices in classic locked room mystery,” 5 July 2008, p. anywhere no one will see it.

In a startling development late yesterday, a joint Homeland Security-FBI task force raided the offices of Josiah Thompson in search of basic competence. “We took a cell call from 178,000 ft,” said an FBI spokesperson, “scrambled, encrypted and very angry.” ‘It’s Thompson’s competence,” shouted the irate caller known only by the codename 'Langley,' “it’s vanished, along with a goddamn fire we needed!’”

Within minutes, a crack combined psycho-forensic rapid response team had smashed down the open office door, thrown up a ten-mile cordon around the deserted office block, and was rummaging with vigor through the debris of Thompson’s reputation, previous passports, and a stray pair of smalls of uncertain ownership. “One minute it was there,” insisted a veteran member of Homeland Security and the GOP, “the next it was gone. But no one had gone in or out of the office building according to the security tapes! By the way, I gotta ask everyone, is this thong yours?”

“It would help if we knew what we were looking for,” confided one frustrated FBI insider close to the hunt. “I mean, what in hell does self-annihilating submission to the purposes of the state-within-a-state look like when it’s at home? Or not, as the case is. At the moment, it’s the ill-equipped in pursuit of the intangible. Kinda like the war on terror in microcosm, if you ask me. Which you should, as I majored in philosophy. Only one in my FBI class.”

In the continuing absence of any sightings of Thompsons’ basic competence, eyes are increasingly turning to a legendary paranormalist. BBC journalist Jane Stanley has been contacted, informed sources confirmed late last night, and is only awaiting security clearance from the British Government, which has in turn sought permission from a much higher authority, MI6.

[Evan Burton]

I'll post this again: Eyewitness accounts from people who saw the fires at WTC7.

Once the fires developed, according to witness accounts and photo evidence gathered in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16) Note: Vitchers may have only seen the building from the north side. There may not have been visible fires on most floors there. His quote is included to show how impressive the scene was.

First responder accounts. Unless otherwise noted, accounts are from the FDNY oral history transcripts.

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...z/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.

–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transc...e-reports02.pdf page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transc...e-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]

12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."

–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.....explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transc...e-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook

(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):

I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.

...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.

He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.

Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.

Q: Would that be towards West Street?

A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]

–Firefighter Gerard Suden

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "xxxx 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/featu...5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.

–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transc...e-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profile...vitchers_t.html

25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --

Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?

A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe

28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)

30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/modica.html

31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.

–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.

–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitness...untsofwtc7fires

I can believe that one or two people might mistake what they saw, but that many people - including professional firefighters - who talk about the building being ablaze? I trust what multiple people - who were there - say.

[Josiah Thompson]

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.

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.

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!

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.

UPI, “FBI, Homeland Security raid investigator’s offices in classic locked room mystery,” 5 July 2008, p. anywhere no one will see it.

In a startling development late yesterday, a joint Homeland Security-FBI task force raided the offices of Josiah Thompson in search of basic competence. “We took a cell call from 178,000 ft,” said an FBI spokesperson, “scrambled, encrypted and very angry.” ‘It’s Thompson’s competence,” shouted the irate caller known only by the codename 'Langley,' “it’s vanished, along with a goddamn fire we needed!’”

Within minutes, a crack combined psycho-forensic rapid response team had smashed down the open office door, thrown up a ten-mile cordon around the deserted office block, and was rummaging with vigor through the debris of Thompson’s reputation, previous passports, and a stray pair of smalls of uncertain ownership. “One minute it was there,” insisted a veteran member of Homeland Security and the GOP, “the next it was gone. But no one had gone in or out of the office building according to the security tapes! By the way, I gotta ask everyone, is this thong yours?”

“It would help if we knew what we were looking for,” confided one frustrated FBI insider close to the hunt. “I mean, what in hell does self-annihilating submission to the purposes of the state-within-a-state look like when it’s at home? Or not, as the case is. At the moment, it’s the ill-equipped in pursuit of the intangible. Kinda like the war on terror in microcosm, if you ask me. Which you should, as I majored in philosophy. Only one in my FBI class.”

In the continuing absence of any sightings of Thompsons’ basic competence, eyes are increasingly turning to a legendary paranormalist. BBC journalist Jane Stanley has been contacted, informed sources confirmed late last night, and is only awaiting security clearance from the British Government, which has in turn sought permission from a much higher authority, MI6.

[Jack White]

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?

Must be the WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE theory.

I see lots of smoke, no raging inferno. What's fueling the

smoke in a steel and concrete building? Desks, chairs, carpets?

No modern skyscraper has ever before fallen because of

interior wood furnishings burning. Smoke does not = fire.

In fact, smoke indicates INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION, thus

an inefficient fire. A wood fire cannot melt steel beams.

Much of the smoke seems to be coming from Building Six

at the right.

Jack

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

[Josiah Thompson]

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.

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?

Must be the WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE theory.

I see lots of smoke, no raging inferno. What's fueling the

smoke in a steel and concrete building? Desks, chairs, carpets?

No modern skyscraper has ever before fallen because of

interior wood furnishings burning. Smoke does not = fire.

In fact, smoke indicates INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION, thus

an inefficient fire. A wood fire cannot melt steel beams.

Much of the smoke seems to be coming from Building Six

at the right.

Jack

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

[Josiah Thompson]

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.

[Evan Burton]

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.

It may be quite true that no photos show significant fires (I am unsure if any exist; there may be some). If true, it might because:

1. There were no significant fires; or

2. There were no photos taken of those particular fires.

Taken in isolation, either could be true. Perhaps No 1 would be more believable... however when you see there are multiple descriptions of raging fires, descriptions from firefighters, from bystanders, etc, the existence of numerous large fires must be acknowledged.

The only alternative, as far as I can see, is to say that the witnesses are all lying.

Which is it, Jack?

[Jack White]

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.

It may be quite true that no photos show significant fires (I am unsure if any exist; there may be some). If true, it might because:

1. There were no significant fires; or

2. There were no photos taken of those particular fires.

Taken in isolation, either could be true. Perhaps No 1 would be more believable... however when you see there are multiple descriptions of raging fires, descriptions from firefighters, from bystanders, etc, the existence of numerous large fires must be acknowledged.

The only alternative, as far as I can see, is to say that the witnesses are all lying.

Which is it, Jack?

I'll pit my EXPLOSION WITNESSES against your RAGING FIRE WITNESSES any time.

Check out...

http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

Jack