Missing The Obvious - WTC 7 Was to Implode Simultaneously

[Wokeman]

Silverstein, Giuliani, WTC 7 and 20-20 Hindsight
Synopsis: World Trade Center 7 was originally meant to implode simultaneously with the North Tower on 9/11
Source: Published: April 1, 2005 Author: Jeremy Baker
For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.

If I was a gambling man I'd bet the farm. WTC 7 was originally
meant to collapse a few seconds after the North Tower hit the
ground. Not seven hours later. I can't think of a single reason
that these guys would want to keep this World Trade Center
complex building intact all day long.

9/11 skeptics, well versed in this esoteric field, know what
I'm talking about. Something went very wrong that day. Some
signal got crossed, maybe there was sabotage from within, we'll
probably never really know for sure. But if we accept, as most
of these fine researchers, writers and activists do, that the
Twin Towers and WTC 7 were finished off with pre-planted
explosives (the coup de grace in what was essentially an inside
job), then its the only scenario that fits.

Think about it. How would it possibly benefit the perpetrators
to wait hours, until late in the day, to finally push the button
on Building 7? The whole world would be watching. That handy
cloud of powdered debris that enveloped lower Manhattan would be
long gone, your cover all but blown. Why draw out the spectacle
any longer than necessary?

And it explains some things that have always needed
explaining. For instance, we have several photographs of
marginal, struggling fires burning on the 7th and 12th floors of
Building 7, ones that, according to official reports, were
supposed to have melted the building and brought it crashing
down. But does that scenario really make any sense at all? Did
it ever? Could it be, instead, that these inconsequential fires
in Building 7 provide us with clues about what was really going
on inside? Doesn't the following scenario make more sense: when
WTC 7 failed to collapse on schedule, the conspirators scrambled
to bring the demolition system back on line. With their original
plan in ruins, they finally made the decision to set fires in
WTC 7 for the same reason theyd been set by the planes in the
towers: to provide a plausible pretext for the buildings
forthcoming demolition.

But the fires, set by desperate men in a tight spot, never
quite caught on the way they should have. But why? If the
original plan had been (for some inexplicable reason) to keep
WTC 7 intact all day long and start fires in the afternoon that
could be blamed for the collapse of the building, wouldn't they
have lit up WTC 7 like a roman candle to enhance the effect? We
know that these guys can build a serious fire when they apply
themselves. We have the photos of WTC 5 and 6 burning like blast
furnaces to prove it. But the well planned and executed arson in
these buildings required time and resources that the guys in
Building 7, working on the sly, just werent able to produce on
such short notice, especially when the building was surrounded
by chaos, emergency workers and a moonscape of destruction. So
they threw together what fires they could using whatever they
had on hand and then beat feet for Fleet Street. The resulting
blazes, barely discernable from without, took hours to grow to
the size necessary to sustain the illusion (barely) that, like
the Twin Towers, WTC 7 just couldn't stand the heat. And then,
late in the day and with lower Manhattan in lock-down, the
Keystone Konspirators finally pulled the plug on 7 at 5:25 PM.

This revealing fact, that fires in Building 7 weren't even
called in until late in the day (approx. 3 PM), is a glaring
9/11 anomaly because of how harshly it conflicts with official
reports that raging fires were ignited by debris from Tower Ones
collapse that morning. But what kind of raging fire takes hours
to build to even a modest size before finally getting called in
late in the day?

Officials have offered speculations on WTC 7's (and the
towers) unprecedented vulnerability to fire but nothing that's
ever held water. And this story about the 40,000 gallons of
diesel fuel catching on fire and burning down the house, what
nonsense. If that gas tank became involved there wouldn't have
been a fire, there would have been an explosion (a big one), and
then a fire, a huge fire. And it's for this reason that the perps
would never have torched the diesel tank to set their little
dummy blaze. That kind of inferno would damage explosive systems
and cause all kinds of problems. Remember, their goal was the
total destruction of the entire structure as planned, not an
unwieldy blaze within. But these guys knew better and made sure
to set their fires well above the huge diesel tank on ground
level.

WTC 7 still on its feet hours after the attacks was
problematic in other ways. The official story has always been
that the North Towers plummeting debris impacted WTC 7 (which
was one full city block from the North Tower with WTC 6 standing
in between) and ignited a dynamic inferno that caused the 47
story, steel framed structure to suddenly drop like a stone
hours later, a phenomenon unprecedented in the history of
firefighting and one that occurred not once but three times on
September 11th. But Building 7's longevity undoubtedly increased
the likelihood of people noticing and possibly photographing the
obvious lack of damage to Building 7 from the collapse of Tower
One. Isn't it extremely suspicious that absolutely no photographs
of WTC 7's damaged face have ever been released to the public?
The building was standing there all day long. Isn't it more
likely that when WTC 7 didn't go down on schedule, Plan B became
containment, much like it had been at the Pentagon (and Oklahoma
city for that matter). What few photogs, film crews or onlookers
that penetrated ground zero would have their materials
confiscated for security purposes.

But there were also conflicting reports about a man said to
have been the only person to die in the collapse of WTC 7. The
US House of Representatives website posted a tribute to Secret
Service Special Officer Craig Miller whose body was found in the
rubble of Building 7. According to this posting, Officer Miller
apparently died during the rescue effort that day. After the
Towers were hit, Building 7 (the Manhattan HQ of the Secret
Service) was quickly evacuated and everyone survived, all except
this lone SS guy. Not a firefighter. Not a rescue worker or a
cop. Other accounts record no fatalities whatsoever in 7. Why
the confusion? There was either a body in the rubble or there
wasn't. Was an autopsy done on this man?

And who on earth was this SS guy rescuing? WTC 7 had been
evacuated. Are Secret Service officers mandated to rescue people
from (empty) burning buildings? The fires in WTC 7 were burning
on the floors just above and below Secret Service offices on the
9th and 10th floors. Could this man have played a role in the
day's events that got him into trouble? Could he have been an
amateur arsonist who got too close to his fire? The story of
Larry Silverstein claiming to have pulled WTC 7 is well known
among 9/11 researchers. The only explanation thats ever been
offered in Silverstein's defense was that he meant pull the
firefighters out of the dangerously burning building. But if
that were true, why didn't this Secret Service guy get the
message? But then no nostalgic look back on WTC 7 (and the Trade
Center in general) is complete without reacquainting ourselves
with the inscrutable Manhattan real estate mogul Larry
Silverstein. Sooner or later, history is going to have to decide
how it remembers this guy. With all weve learned about September
11th there are still only a handful of actual, individual
suspects. Id like to nominate Mr. Silverstein to this elite
fraternity.

World Trade Center 7, or the Solomon Brothers Building, was
owned by Silverstein Properties and had been the headquarters of
his development company, Westfield America, for years. But it
also housed Rudy Giulianis Office of Emergency Management (OEM),
a reinforced, Arab proof control center oddly located at the
number one terrorist target in the country (a baffling choice of
locations considering that the WTC had already been attacked
once in 1993). This incomprehensible (and very unheroic)
decision proved its absurdity on 9/11 when, in the midst of an
actual emergency, Giuliani was unable to access his control
center for obvious reasons.

WTC 7 also hosted offices of the DoD, the IRS and the SEC, as
well as a handful of private financial institutions. In
addition, 7 was the storage center for millions of files on
active cases involving organized crime, international drug
dealing, money laundering and terrorism, all of which have
demonstrable links to US intelligence. So a New York Times
report that Building 7 was also the secret location of the
largest domestic CIA station outside of the District of Columbia
probably shouldn't come as a surprise. The addition of the agency
to this already scintillating list of tenants would appear to
make WTC 7 a kind of nexus for what many researchers consider to
be key entities in this sprawling conspiracy. But the fact that
Larry Silverstein was the CIAs secret NYC landlord for years is
a point I made sure to jot down too.

Some researchers have made the shocking claim that the OEM was
just a cover for its real purpose, the conspirators attack
operations center (now that would explain the poor choice of
locations). This recently armored facility, high on the 23rd
floor, had a birds eye view of the unfolding spectacle, the
perfect vantage point from which to guide the planes to their
targets and fine tune the demolition strategy for the Twin
Towers (when to detonate, which floors to blast first, etc.).
But once you've cooly orchestrated the collapse of the safely
distant South Tower (murdering hundreds of fleeing office
workers and firefighters) and programmed the explosives in the
North Tower, doesn't it then make sense to set the timers, vacate
the building, say a Hail Mary and then watch the North Tower and
WTC 7 collapse at the same time, neatly wrapping up the morning's
work? Whatever Giulianis control center had been used for, the
evidence would be obliterated, along with years of CIA secrets,
government files and the ghosts of WTC 7.

If this dizzying, Danté-esque spectacle is, in fact, a reality
and does, amazingly, feature America's Mayor in a leading role,
what do we know about Giuliani's movements at the time?
Officially, he was at a makeshift command post at 75 Barclay
Street until just before the collapses when he claims that he
and his staff were evacuated from the building. He later told
Peter Jennings, We were told that the WTC was gonna collapse, a
prophetic remark considering the fact that no steel framed
highrise had ever collapsed due to fire before. But WTC 7 is on
Barclay Street, just at the evacuation perimeter, proving that
Giuliani was indeed in the area at the time. But he was
evacuating the area, not setting up shop in WTC 7 for a hard day
of directing traffic from above.

This idea, that the mayor's command bunker was meant to be used
throughout the day before being demolished, I just don't see it.
The mayor of New York City (or whomever), orchestrating the
aftermath of 9/11 in the upper floors of a burning building? And
what would he (they) be doing up there? Seems to me that the
day's to-do list had already been checked off. And for the life
of me, I just can't imagine that the original plan would ever
have included the re-entry of any of the structures after the
devastation that occurred earlier.

There is, in addition, a compelling connection to be made
between the mayors OEM and the fires in WTC 7. The lower of the
two fires in WTC 7 was on floor 7, the location of the OEM's
emergency generators. If the arsonists were indeed OEM men, they
would not only have had access to this floor, they would also
have had a ready supply of accellerant (i.e. gasoline) at their
disposal (the upper fire was on one of 3 floors used by the
SEC).

So the mayor (and others) may have had access to his command
bunker after all, but just long enough for it to serve its
purposes that morning. And, as for being told that the WTC was
gonna collapse, well, if you already knew this for a fact
because you were gonna make it collapse, its as good an excuse
as any to cover a timely exit.

As 9/11 researchers are well aware, Larry Silverstein took
over control of the World Trade Center just a few weeks before
the attacks of 9/11. After ramping up the insurance on the
complex (an act of uncanny foresight considering what was to
come) he then set to work replacing security personnel in a
building complex that hadn't changed hands in thirty years and
had never before been privately controlled. His 2001 sweetheart
deal with the Port Authority and the City of New York was for a
99 year lease worth much more than the $3.2 billion he and his
firm had contracted for. And later, when he tried to sue the
insurance companies claiming that two planes means two terrorist
attacks, therefore twice the settlement (bringing the total, in
Silversteins mind, to $7.2 billion), the courts cried foul and
sent Larry packing (after the attacks, one WTC insurer sued
Silverstein for apparently paying lobbyists to try to limit his
liability to the victims families). Funny, I don't remember the
headline; Manhattan Tycoon Exploits National Tragedy for
Personal Gain appearing anywhere after 9/11.

But the real specter haunting Larry Silverstein involves a
growing body of evidence that Zionist extremists may've had a
hand in the attacks of 9/11. There are some who believe that
Mossad (Israeli intelligence) fingerprints are all over the
attacks, and I'm not so sure I disagree. Israel has a well
documented history of framing Arabs for attacks on Americans, a
fact that never seemed to make its way into the mainstream mind
in the months after September 11th. And the Zionist fanatics
who've pulled off this kind of op in the past have a history of
tapping the diaspora for talent. And Larry Silverstein is just
their kind of guy.

Ex-president of the United Jewish Appeal (the largest Israeli
fundraiser in the US) and a highly connected supporter of
Israel, Silverstein has strong ties to the Israeli political and
business establishments. His colleague, another UJA leader,
Lewis Eisenberg former chairman of the Port Authority, finance
chairman for the RNC and former VP of AIPAC (American/Israeli
PAC) negotiated the deal that put the WTC in Silversteins
control. Add to this the many examples of Israeli foreknowledge
of and proximity to the attacks and the plot begins to thicken
considerably.

There are a host of disturbing ties between Israeli hardliners
and September 11th (too many to list in detail here) but none
more compelling than the basic issue of motive. It simply cannot
be argued that no single player stood to gain more from the
attacks (or, more accurately, from the response to the attacks)
than the Zionist hardliners whove been envisioning a Mideast
under their control for decades. For many years before 9/11,
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol and other
powerful, highly placed American Zionists had advocated for
increasingly aggressive US military actions towards a host of
Muslim states. All that was needed to get the ball rolling was
the Pearl Harbor-like event mentioned so often in their pre-9/11
literature. And its working. Our bludgeoning of Afghanistan and
Iraq represent bold steps towards the fulfillment of the
sulphurous neo-con agenda.

Given the fact that Silversteins name pops up in many dark
corners of the 9/11 shadow play, is it really unfair to view him
as a person of interest in the horrendous crime and coverup of
September 11th? And if he was a player in a subterfuge of this
magnitude, is it really such a stretch to imagine that he might
have been in the room when the pseudo-hijackings were being
planned? And if he was, might he have suggested tweaking the
plan just a little to include a detour by Flight 175 south?
Knowing that the Air Force would be AWOL that morning, the
planes scenic side trip would surely be, at worse, a minor
adjustment but with major implications. This one, small
alteration to the aircraft's flight plan would not only result in
the planes hitting from opposite directions, it would also
increase the length of time between the first and second hits.
And these two points combined might go a long way to supporting
Silversteins claim of two separate terrorist events.

Its a matter of record. Flight 175 (the second plane to strike
the WTC) came barreling out of the north, flew south far past
Manhattan before circling back towards the city, a peculiar
deviation that took the plane a good fifteen minutes or so out
of its way. This odd, time wasting and risky maneuver has never
been explained. Certainly the hijackers wouldnt have thought it
was a good idea. Wouldnt they want to secure the objective ASAP
before the fighter jets showed up? It just doesn't compute. But
there's one man who might've done very well by this short trip
south if only his fortunes had unfolded according to plan in the
courtroom. And all Silverstein had to do was give Dov Zakheim a
call.

With close ties to the Israeli government and reported duel
Israeli/American citizenship, Bushs Texas buddy and
undersecretary of state, Dov Zakheim, boasts a long list of
impressive credentials. Ex-DoD CFO (chief financial officer),
Zakheim joined the Pentagon staff in May, 2001, shortly before
the attacks and at a time when the Pentagon couldnt account for
$3 trillion in spending. A longtime DoD consultant and neo-con
insider, hes also a senior figure at the Heritage Foundation,
the Center for International and Strategic Studies and the
Center for Security Policy not to mention the Council on Foreign
Relations and the PNAC. But before his Pentagon gig, he was also
VP of Systems Planning Corporation and CEO of one of its
subsidiaries. SPC is a high-tech outfit that specializes in,
among other things, the remote control commandeering of aircraft
and the technical support required for live flight military
exercises.

This bizarre but entirely viable theory, that some or all of
the hijacked passenger jets on 9/11 had been remotely
commandeered and guided to their targets, has been (despite its
Buck Rogers kind of aspect) a key speculation among the very
best 9/11 researchers. This technology has been with us for
decades and Zakheims SPC specializes in it. SPCs Flight
Termination System is a fully programmable tool to retrieve
aircraft remotely. But this technology is also a key element in
the kind of live flight war games the military was conveniently
conducting on 9/11. These cold war drills in Northern Canada and
Alaska drew interceptors away fron the Northeast US and, using
false radar blips, effectively paralyzed defenders who might
otherwise have reached their targets. But it also eliminated the
need for a peculiar and very risky general stand down order from
Pentagon brass during the attacks, a command that would create
disbelief and suspicion among hundreds of patriotic military
people.

A couple of years ago, PBS aired a program entitled America
Rebuilds, a documentary detailing the cleanup effort at ground
zero. The comments Larry Silverstein made in an interview in
this program have become a point of interest among 9/11
researchers and Ive enjoyed watching this story steadily gain a
following. Specifically, he described being on the phone with
the FDNY commander and coming to the conclusion that there had
been such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do
is, is pull it, (referring to WTC 7). Then, according to
Silverstein, they made that decision to pull and we watched the
building collapse (the same documentary quotes a demo worker:
well, were getting ready to pull building 6 moments before
demolishing its burnt out carcass, a comment that would appear
to support the meaning of the industry term pull).

Many have asked how he could possibly have been so careless as
to make such an admission publicly. But what if circumstances
compelled him to do so? What if his comments were a discrete
response to growing suspicions surrounding the botched attempt
to pull WTC 7 earlier in the day? The powers-that-be have
brazenly used PBS programming to spin other aspects of 9/11. The
NOVA program that espoused the theory of the pancaking of the
Twin Towers floors is infamous in the 9/11 skeptics community.
PBS programs relating to 9/11 typically feature experts who
unanimously support the party line. I remember one such
authority solemnly offering his professional opinion that the
paper we saw falling like confetti as the WTC burned undoubtedly
contributed to the raging fires within and played a significant
role in the collapse of the towers!

With WTC 7's obvious demolition caught on film from at least
three excellent perspectives, its an understatement to say that
Silverstein and his cohorts had a big problem on their hands.
Could it be that his comments about pulling WTC 7 were a
carefully choreographed hang out of the issue? Using Karl
Rove-like sleight of hand, he offers a vague accounting of the
anomaly delivered to us on an almost subconscious level. Ive
watched that video clip hundreds of times and to this day I hear
only one thing: that he and his people made the decision to
demolish WTC 7 citing the terrible loss of life suffered earlier
that day. His body language, his wording, his tone, all seem to
point to this one terrible conclusion. Paradoxically, his
comments may have been intended to steer us in the exact
opposite direction: that, despite how it may have appeared,
heroes in high places stepped up and made the tough choices.

The expression pull relates to the word demolition the same
way that the expression wind up relates to the word pitch. In
both cases they represent one event occurring in two stages. In
this sense, Silversteins use of the word pull to mean demolition
seems clear and may also have served to cover the sudden and
suspicious evacuation of rescue personnel from the disaster zone
shortly before WTC 7's bizarre suicide a necessity when youre
about to demolish a building. A photographer on the scene
described the evacuation of firefighters as they prepared for
the collapse of Building 7...I was 150 yards away when I saw the
firefighters raising the flag. Excuse me? Steel framed high rises
don't collapse! Firemen, knowing this to be true, typically
approach steel framed buildings (just like they did the towers
that morning), especially if the structures are only marginally
involved. Isnt it highly suspicious that the firefighters
seemingly just gave up on this exceedingly important and
valuable government building that had only modest fires burning
within? Doesnt this fact support the theory that WTC 7 was
essentially a crime scene that needed to be destroyed?

This mans statement (which, by the way, proves that
photographers werent barred from the scene and could very well
have produced images of WTC 7's debris damage) describes the
behavior of workers who were evacuating a building that was
about to be demolished, not trained emergency workers worried
about something that never happens. Silversteins remarks replace
this problematic scenario with the tall tale of wise (and
clairvoyant) public servants acting in the nick of time to save
lives (not scatter potential witnesses). Either way Mr.
Silverstein has some explaining to do.

The plan to obscure WTC 7's implosion with the billowing dust
cloud created by the collapse of Tower One is too good an idea
for these guys not to have considered. And it would have worked
like a charm. The flattened 32 story Marriott Vista hotel (or
WTC 3), nestled snugly between the towers, is long forgotten in
a world that barely remembers the life and times of Building 7.
If WTC 7 being pulled when it was mostly hidden from view (and
as chaos reigned on the streets below) wasnt the original plan,
it shouldve been. And considering all the hubbub created by its
remaining intact, it makes sense that this was indeed the
original idea.

The unintended survival of WTC 7, shortlived though it was,
has proven itself to be a gift from providence to the good
people of the world on a day when it seemed as though providence
had abandoned us. Those of us who know that 9/11 was conceived,
written and directed by, well, the usual suspects, find, in
Building 7 and its dark pedigree, the Achilles heel in the
official fairy tale sold us in the wake of the most vile
deception history has ever recorded. Lets hope we make the most
of this gift.

If you can judge the substance of a new paradigm by how
thoroughly it displaces an old one, than maybe were onto
something here. Since this possibility occurred to me, I simply
cannot remember the WTC disaster the way I used to; that for
some inexplicable reason Building 7 just lingered for hours
after the attacks before they finally pulled it. And after years
of sifting through this material and scrutinizing 9/11, I will
never again see WTC 7 as anything other than what it surely was.
A dud. An epic, 47 story, steel-belted dud that, later that day,
blew up in Larry Silversteins hand.
Copyright 2005 Darkprints

For a video of Silversteins comments about pulling WTC 7, go to:
[17]http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm
To see three excellent videos of WTC 7 imploding, go to:
[18]http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
___________________________________________________________

[Alan Firminger]

Well done. I will reread the piece tomorrow. A first thought below.

A building demolition controller should comprise a laptop and a small connected box for the transmitter. If it used the mobile 'phone system then the external box is not needed.

There would be one demolition controller, because there would be one demolition expert. Control might have been outside WTC7 because although to collapse WTC7 it could have been set on a timer and left to self destruct putting the control in WTC7 would remove flexibility. It could have been anywhere locally, staffed by one person who would act on simple instructions 'phoned in.

The only thing an evil control centre has to do is decide when to pull each building.

New York would have a ready prepared disaster control centre. There would be maps, flashing lights, screens, tv feeds, excellent communications with a drilled team of all services involved doing the work. The Mayor would have been quite correct to be there, provided he did not interfere with its smooth running. The most senior politician available should be present ready for two possible functions. This control centre would have a complete picture of what was happening, so the instructions to demolish the buildings probably came from there. One person would have been all that would be required, not necessarily the Mayor.

Perhaps the whole conspracy was organised in WTC7. All the records were there. Hows that for a complete clean up ?

But a casualty show that something was going on in the building.

Although CtE describes WTC7 as disused except for the CIA, the second show at Friends Meeting House Penny Little's part made film included a witness who said that he was sat at his desk in WTC7 when the first 'plane struck. So the building was in regular use, I assume that a member of the CIA would bear this witnes.

[paul wright]

The late destruction of WTC7 and Silverstein's declaration along with all the other sloppiness in the explanations are merely confirmatory that we are meant to out this story
It's bubbling just below the surface of accepted reality
Manipulated or Schumann-regulated earth changes are piling on the pressure, while we're continually threatened with avian flu virus
The HAARP and cell phone network threatens the natural frequency upgrades
Looking backwards at the staged terror events while understanding how they are moving into the realm of 'natural' occurrences
Any bird flu vaccine they produce threatens the decimation of the population
Whilst we might be individually attenuating, how do we challenge that?

[brian]

dh, I have suspected for some time that September 11 was meant to be exposed whilst not having a genuine understanding of the why. My guess would be it would be instrumental in the creation of the one world government scenario but it does not appear to be going to plan. Appearances of course can be deceptive and the dangers a little knowledge raises are well known.

Can you elaborate or point me to information on the "The HAARP and cell phone network threatens the natural frequency upgrades" part of your post.

For a bit of humour on the flu virus a read of Alastair Beaton's satirical novel "A Planet for the President" is recommended. Written in 2004 it accurately predicted the New Orleans catastrophe and the increasing woes of this administration but its central theme is the flu virus. A chilling laugh is how I would describe it.

[Alan Firminger]

Wokeman's essay said that any commercial airliner may have control taken from the pilot, to be controlled from the ground. Is there a published reference to this ?

Because these aircraft are flown by computers that normally obey the pilot's bidding and these computers are able to transmit and receive data through the transponder, I am convinced that ground control is very readilly possible. I do not know if the undercarriage could be lowered for a remote ILS. Using the autopilot, which uses gps, the ground could send an aircraft through any chosen series of points in space.

Some items of history.

When the British aviation industry was getting going in the late 40s a rule was established that all commercial flights must have a pilot on board. So this is not fancifull, although it could not be implemented then.

In the 70s there was much talk of Arabs hijacking aircraft and flying them into nuclear power stations. In the US desperate people were hijacking aircraft to fly to Cuba. There were many hijackings then until security became severe. Apart from a few Chechens and 911 it has been very quiet for about fifteen years. Another change introduced then was the secret button installed for the flight crew that initiated a 'we have been hijacked beacon'.

So was automatic ground takeover installed on aircraft and kept secret ? When something is possible it tends to happen. The rationale would be do it to prevent hijackers flying into skyscrapers. But since the facility would be public after first use there should have been publication to reassure the travelling public. If it was done with good intent then many technicians will know about it.

And quite separately what about the dog that did not bark. On the four aircraft why did no crew member signal a hijack ?

I will come back for more later.

[paul wright]