Silverstein's 'Pull' Comments
Analyzed Further

From Nico Haupt

At least 10 people are analysing the PBS-Silverstein statement about WTC 7 and we didn't really finish our analysis yet. When i found out that someone posted to you the story of Jeremy Baker (updated now on Peter Meyer's serendipity), which includes a link to the MP3, digitized from the original PBS video, organised by
Maybe you want to add a follow-up thought on that?
It's written by Michael Kane, one of the staff members of SGTV and GlobalFreePress. I think, it's very important.
Thanks, Nico
"The decision was made to pull"
By Michael Kane
This article has one key flaw in it's analysis.
I've said it once before, and I'll say it again, someone MUST call Larry Silverstein and get an official comment on this because LARRY DOES NOT SAY THAT WTC 7 WAS DEMOLISHED, OR "PULLED", ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2001.
All you have to do is go listen to the mp3 for yourself and it is clear as day:
What he says is that they made the DECISION to "pull" (meaning demolish) WTC 7 and SHORTLY AFTER THEY MADE THAT DECISION, Larry Silverstein says "they watched the building COLLAPSE.
Regardless of what really happened, what this man said does NOT say that the building was demolished.
He clearly says "the decision was made to pull" and then he says,
"and we watched the building collapse"
The connotation is that they were going to demolish it anyway, but golly-gee-wiz the building collapsed right when they made that decision so they DID NOT actually go through with the demolition.
So, when Jeremy Baker said in his article:
"Mr. Silverstein's comments imply that he and the FDNY threw together an expert demolition job in the space of a few short hours on the afternoon of 9/11"
This is not correct, Silverstein was very careful to NOT imply this in the way he worded what he said.
Silverstein's statement does not imply that was done - it is impossible to do that anyway and Silverstein did not walk into a trap like that; he covered his ass with the way in which he worded what he said.
I don't have time for this now, but I hope someone out there does (hopefully Jeremy Baker can do this to properly follow-up on his first piece, which was otherwise quite good)
That's what must happen. The above article by Jeremy Baker makes assumptions off of a statement which, in a court of law, can be defended the way I just interrupted above.
I guarantee when someone calls Mr. Silverstein he is going to say EXACTLY what I said above because it makes sense and still jives with the official story. Whoever calls and asks this should very thoroughly consider what their FOLLOW-UP questions will be because that is where we may get good information.
I applaud Jeremy Baker for writing a piece to scrutinize the Achilles heal of 9-11, but he (or someone) must follow up properly with calls to Larry Silverstein and whoever the head of FDNY was that day who he spoke to and clarify this. Without doing so, we will make no further progress.




This Site Served by TheHostPros