PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7

[RBHam]

In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower.

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

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.
http://www.infowars.com/audio/PullIt.mp3 Thanks to Sir Dave 'tmo' Soule for transfering this from the video to an MP3 file. "America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/.>

Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC 7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way?

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.

more...

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

[Must_B_Free]

1. The real lesson of this was about the people arguing against it

The most that can be said is that there is no conspiracy proven here regarding WTC7.

What is most fascinating are the posts insisting that it was not pulled. The posts about the big heavy beams. About how all buildings fall like that. And how the diesel fire weakened it.

The creeping effect of the revelation however is that it makes us want to re-examine all of the banter about the other towers. All those "expert judgements" like we had on WTC7, who told us, "that;s just how steel buildings fall", and the like.

[RBHam]

2. Expect no "official story" apologists to reply to this

Too busy covering their heads with sand and reciting the mantra "Bad thoughts go away!"

[DS1]

5. Why should we?

It's infowars.com coming to the same conclusion that the tinfoils came to here, because of one sentence of foggy terminology, suddenly the building was brought down on purpose.

Your arguments are tired. Citing the same story over and over again, through the interpretations of established nutters isn't going to prove anything. Until someone here personally picks up the phone and asks Silverstein what he really meant, none of this can be 'proven' either way. From another thread "I can't see fires from the available footage" - so because it wasn't captured on film it never happened?

That's all I have to say about it, believe what you want to, wrapping the decision of a real estate developer to initiate a pre-planned demolition of a 40+ story building in order to coverup something the government did remote control jets and beam weapons is getting pretty fucking old.

[moof]

3. Not making any excuses here but,

Being a big PBS fan, that show was listened to here several times & there is probably a copy of it on the shelf. Also moof is firmly in the LIHOP camp & is quite willing to be convinced of MIHOP.
Have either of you listened to this yet ? It would not be the first time one of the rich and powerful spit the truth right in our face
without people catching on right away but from memory the context seemed that there was no reason to endanger any more firefighters on a lost cause and that it was that effort by the fire department that should be pulled. Haven't got MP3 capability here but do you still have the same conclusion after listening to the few minutes before & after the " Pull it " quote ?

Here's hoping you are onto a solid lead.

[frylock]

4. kick

:kick:

[pmbryant]

6. I think "pull" means pull the firefighters out of the building

That's my interpretation. I really don't think it means demolish the building purposefully.

They didn't want to lose any more firefighters' lives, so they decided to pull them out and watch the building burn on its own.

--Peter

[TrogL]

7. This duplicates a discussion in the 9-11 forum

which is probably where this belongs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=6459

[nostamj]

8. repeating this silly idea over and over

does not increase its credibility.

bombs in WTC7 whether placed before or after the attacks is a ridiculous premise.

building burns for 7+ hours after being damaged by falling debris. building collapses. no need for tin here.

there are legitimate LIHOP/MIHOP questions.

mods, please lock this down (again) it's already running (in a circle) in the 9/11 forum.

[Moderator]

9. Duplicate

Interested DUers may continue discussing in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=6459