he isn't a sociopath

John, I think Hayton is not lying as well.

Here is the BBC's denial; "official explanation"
http://911blogger.com/node/6501

If I'm not mistaken, Thompson bases his belief in what happened at WTC7 upon as yet unreleased research by PSEs retained by Con Ed for a lawsuit that is still in production. At least, nobody I know can find evidence released to the public as disclosure, as part of a filed lawsuit. He can't reveal specifics about their research, but from my conversation with Thompson, early last month, he said that the NIST explanation of "single-column" failure is pretty much the path that the PSEs are travelling.

It's fair to note that since there was nobody in the building immediately preceding the "collapse", what happened on the inside is speculation, professional experienced speculation, extrapolated from observation of the exterior, to be sure, but still speculative.

Even Thompson admits that the "collapse" looks just like a CD. And it does.

(Photo-trickery. Jack White somehow found time for 9/11, not sure if you knew about that;
http://www.911studies.com/ )

Just to be fair, Josiah is a former military man himself;

"JOSIAH THOMPSON has studied as Oxford, the University of Copenhagen, and Yale, where he completed his B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. degress with time out for a two-year hitch as a naval officer (in 1958, when the Marines landed in Lebanon, he commanded the UDT detachment charged with beach reconnaissance). He has been an Instructor in the Yale Philosophy Department..." - (from Six Seconds book flap.)

UDT: Underwater Demolition Team.

Jesse Ventura is a former SEAL, and of course, SEALs conduct UD as part of their training. He thinks CD is entirely probable on 9/11.

Nafeez Ahmed acknowledges the possibility of CD, but leaves speculation to the scientists.
http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/09/interrogating-911.html

Peter Dale Scott co-edited 9/11 and American Empire;
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3168

...which is very friendly to the possibility of CD. Sadly, the book has a chapter by Morgan Reynolds, a "former" Bush man. (Luckily he just talks about the good old days with Robert Gates.)

People have followed the leads on Oswald for many years, and been misdirected many times. For instance, with false leads to Cuba and the KGB. Who supplied these leads? Western intel would be my guess. Who supplies the most detailed info on the alleged hijackers? Establishment friendly writers like Lawrence Wright, Steve Coll, and Peter Lance. Coll in particular had unusual (exceptional) access to the CIA, yet somehow never noted any drug connections. How could that possibly be? Wright provides us with the story that Al-Qaeda was a term in use for years before anyone used it publicly, allegedly because some reporter found some "notes" stored on an old PC. Dodgy, I say, dodgy! I think Adam Curtis is correct, and the term was coined much later.

I'll be much more accepting of hijackers, as opposed to "hijackers", when verifiable surveillance tapes are released showing Atta and the nasty 19 actually boarding the allegedly hijacked planes.

As far as defining Al-Qaeda, I am in agreement with Ahmed;
http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/16240/The_Hidden_History_of_9_11_2001_a_...

“It has no existence as an independent concrete entity. It designates a highly developed category of Western covert operations designed to secure destabilization through the creation, multiplication, mobilization, and manipulation of disparate mujahideen groups. The evidence suggests that this was certainly the case on 9-11.”

"Western" is kind of open-ended, but I think Ahmed means CIA/MI6, although there is evidence that MI5 uses them too, and it appears that the old links between CIA and GID apply to Al-Qaeda, and let's not forget ISI.

Compared to JFK research, 9/11 is truly nascent. We can learn from others that have preceded us.

"I do not see anything suspicious with the collapse of any of the buildings"

You can't be serious.

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Apparently you don't see anything suspicious about the way WTC 7, for example, has been investigated either?

First destroy practically all the debris without examination. Some of the four pieces that were saved for investigation reveal "intergranular melting" and further investigation is called for. NIST doesn't like the idea. So what they start doing is speculate. For years and years and years... And that is absolutely worthless, because the reason for the collapse could have been determined by simply *investigating* the debris.

it wasn't the FDNY man of the day, Daniel Nigro;
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&q=daniel+nigro+si...

ae - my take on Silverstein for what it's worth.
None of the attempts to explain away his "pull it" comment sound coherent or convincing to me. He is evidently speaking about the building and not the emergency crew.

Watch his confrontation with "We Are Change": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8

Unlike Phil Hayton he does not look like a man who is telling the truth. Indeed, he refuses the opportunity to explain himself.

I don't jump to the conclusion that because he said he pulled it, therefore he pulled it. It seems probable though that he had foreknowledge. So why would he apparently confess to demolishing it? Context. The documentary "America Rebuilds" inevitably placed WTC7 before a prime time audience most of whom were not previously aware of it. Unlike the 9/11 Commission, they chose not to pretend the tower never existed, but by stating it was pulled, Silverstein very effectively directed attention away from it. Building 7? I recall something about it collapsing... Ah - it was deemed unsafe, so Silverstein had it pulled. No mystery, no need to look further. Of course, to the small minority who had already looked further it would be another red flag. These people are clever - they're much more concerned about mass perception. So far the calculation has worked and the wall between internet awareness and the mainstream news machine is unbreached.

I believe Giuliani was employing the same technique when he said "...the way buildings usually collapse, which is in stages... The way number 7 came down... over a period of time ". Red flag to us - Giuliani pretending the building didn't implode. To everyone else - 7 fell in an 'ordinary' fashion, so no need to look further.

"Lucky Larry spoke before consulting his script"

On the contrary. It seems he was consulting his script closely (see my post above). Remember, he did not make this comment until the dust had settled in 2004. I believe it was carefully crafted and delivered to serve the purpose of obfuscation.

Other things to note about Silverstein:

On 9/11 he cancelled his habitual breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant, located on the World Trade Center's north tower
(Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2007)

His daughter also missed her appointment in the WTC that morning.

In the category of hearsay - "We talked to their private security staff, we talked to people who were there with Larry on 9/11 - they said he got a phone call telling him not to show up to work and he called his daughter up and his daughter also never showed up to work," (Luke Rudkowski)

Also worth researching: Sliverstein's connections
and the particulars of his financial and insurance arrangements at WTC prior to 9/11.