ERROR: '"Pull-It": Silverstein Slipped Up, Admitting WTC 7's Demolition'
Hundreds of websites and a score of books and videos
repeat the claim that a remark by WTC 7 developer
Larry Silverstein constitutes an admission that WTC 7
was demolished by a decision of the FDNY.
The remark is on the PBS documentary
America Rebuilds
aired on the eve of the attack's anniversary:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure
they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said,
"We've had such terrible loss of life,
maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."
And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
Most expositions equating "that decision to pull"
with a decision to demolish WTC 7
cite another excerpt in the documentary as evidence that pull-it
means to demolish. A Ground Zero worker states
"... we're getting ready to pull the Building six."
However, one needs only look beyond the video
to see how weak this inference is.
|
e x c e r p t
|
It is clear that the case for Silverstein's admitting demolition
is extremely weak.
- The common assertion that "pull" is industry slang for demolition
lacks support.
A Google search for the term "pull" in relation to controlled demolition
fails to return uses of "pull" meaning demolition outside of the
widely circulated story of Silverstein's admission on 9/11 conspiracy sites.
See the analysis on wtc7.net.
- Even if "pull" were industry slang for demolition,
there would be no reason to expect Silverstein to know this.
- The above quote by a Ground Zero worker about pulling Building 6
is not evidence that "pull" means controlled demolition,
since he was apparently referring to using cables to literally
pull down portions of the building.
A more sophisticated interpretation of Silverstein's comment
is that it is bait,
eliciting the widespread circulation of an interpretation
that is easily denied if not refuted.
While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled
demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the
overwhelming case for demolition
based on the physical characteristics
of the collapse documented in
photographs
and
videos
of the event and the rubble pile that resulted.
|
Thus, it is possible that Silverstein's statement
was calculated to bait skeptics of the official story into
promoting a claim that would conceal the very crime he seemed
to be admitting to.
It may also have been calculated to confuse the issue
of how the building was destroyed and decouple the issue of
WTC 7's demolition from that of the Twin Towers'.
|
e x c e r p t
|
|
A third explanation is less obvious
but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations:
perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse
the issue of what actually happened to Building 7.
By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure,
it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation --
that it was rigged for demolition before the attack.
The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7
on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people,
who neither grasp the technical complexity
of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper,
nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse,
nor the thorough illegality of such an operation.
Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack
serves as a distraction from the
inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned
in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job
to destroy the entire WTC complex.
|
|
page last modified: 2010-12-18
|
|
