A FEAR LESS TRILOGY – Summary of Events

By John Bursill – Truth Action Sydney

“Exposing the Delusion of 9/11 Down under!”

Well, just as the rest of the world does, Australia continues to step up to new heights in our 9/11 Truth campaign, forcing the reality of the September 11 Attacks into the light! Sydney Truth Action decided to put on three events for the anniversary this year, back to back on the 11th, 12th and 13th of September. We are determined to reach a bigger audience with the “truth to peace” message, aiming it directly at the Peace Groups that have resisted us for so long.

Here is a brief summary of these three events….

Event 1 - Public Meeting – DELUSION 911 – September 11th, 2008

I had an idea. I know some of you are already doing this, but If in the future you are asked to write a paper, see if 9/11 Truth relates to the topic you are supposed to write about. If you get an A+, imagine how cool that would be to post online? That’s almost like a peer-reviewed paper. :)

I’m sure there are SEVERAL of us “old-timers” out there that would be more than happy to help you out.

It's a good thing Salomon Brothers took such a huge lease on WTC seven because Silverstein was in a bit of a bind before the building was even completed. Originally a billion dollar deal was about to be completed where the entire building would be leased to Drexel Burnham Lambert. But it didn't work out when things went bad as the junk bond market tanked.

"The investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert (best known for its star dealer, the notorious "junk bond king" Michael Milken) was to become a tenant in 1986 but backed out."
http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nyc4.html#82b

"Drexel Burnham Lambert, the investment house, agreed only two months ago to take an equity interest in the project and also lease the entire building for 30 years."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEFDC1430F934A15754C0A960948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

And then Salomon Brothers comes to the rescue. Not leasing the entire building but well over half.

"Salomon said it would sign a 20-year lease on slightly over one million square feet, or just over half the space in the tower. A Billion in Rental Fees...

via Electronic Mail: wtc@nist.gov
WTC Technical Information Repository
Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610

September 15, 2008

Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports

Dear Mr. Cauffman,

I am writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals who are dedicated to scientific research regarding the destruction of all three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001. We have examined the draft reports recently released by NIST purporting to explain the demise of WTC Building 7 (collectively referred to herein as the “Report”). We have found many areas that need to be revised and re-examined by NIST personnel before they release a final report on this matter. We have provided our names and affiliations at the end of this document, in accordance with the guidelines for submittal of comments promulgated by NIST at (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html).

At the outset, we would like to call attention to the fact that we requested a reasonable extension of time for the public to submit comments. Given the rate at which we were finding incorrect or contradictory statements in the Report, we would likely have found many more areas NIST needs to re-examine before issuing a final report. As we pointed out in our original correspondence with you requesting the extension, the original three week deadline was completely unreasonable. First, it took NIST more than three years to compile this 1000+ page Report. Why, then, were members of the public only given three weeks in which to comment? Moreover, NIST lists ten authors and dozens of contracted and employed staff, which over the three year investigation would yield somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 man-hours of labor. How did NIST expect members of the public to match or even come close to NIST's labor expenditure in three weeks? This first reason alone was enough to warrant a significant extension in the deadline for public comment.