Bombshell:Fox News hit piece inadvertently reveals Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

[Anthony Marsh]

Which means the whole damn thing was an inside job. The temperature to melt steel is 2800 degrees F. That's ONE piece of steel. There is absolutely NO WAY that two buildings as tall as WTCs 1 and 2, and with as much high-strength in them, could have melted to the ground in less than two hours. The ONLY logical way those buildings could have come down, in the manner that they did, is through controlled demolition.

You make a fundamental error. The claim has never been that the steel melted. Just that the temperature was hot enough to WEAKEN the steel until it lost its structural strength. What you see melted is ALUMINUM. You can tell by the color what temperature it is.

[Anthony Marsh]

Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11
Fox News hit piece against 9/11 truth and Jesse Ventura inadvertently reveals a shocking truth; WTC leaseholder was "on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building"

Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.

A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, "I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard."

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

"A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy," writes Shapiro.

However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.

In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous "pull it" comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, "meant something else".

In January 2006, Silverstein's spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the "pull it" comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.

Shapiro's faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.

For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to "pull" the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder's comments.

"I remember getting a call from the 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," said Silverstein.

Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to "pull" the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein's spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVI...r_embedded

Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term "pull" is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76...r_embedded

"While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was," writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.

Shapiro's contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.

Contradicting Shapiro's claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest," said Bartmer.

EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage."

The host asked Singh, "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?," to which Singh responded, "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

[URL="http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/inemnewwoord.html"]
[/URL]

Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

"There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us," he stated.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Mike's report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwjmqkjwn...r_embedded

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard 'crimp' in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent 'squibs' of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw...r_embedded

Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.

Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29g...r_embedded

Just about every sentence of Shapiro's hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, "I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks," fails to ring true.

However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro's inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein's $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.

Shapiro's testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein's insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles...wanted.htm

Yes, the professional debunkers lie when they say that "pull it" does not mean controlled demolition. I have been pointing out a PBS special about the science of controlled demolitions where one of the experts explains how they "pull" a building.
But that does not give the 9/11 Truthers the right to lie about what Silverstein said. Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained and realized it was better to just write it off as a loss and demolish it. That is a business decision, not conspiracy.
No one decided to pull building 6 before 9/11, but they eventually did.

[Mark Stapleton]

But that does not give the 9/11 Truthers the right to lie about what Silverstein said. Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained and realized it was better to just write it off as a loss and demolish it. That is a business decision, not conspiracy.

And instead of his usual breakfast at Windows of the World restaurant, Larry had a doctors appointment that day.

Lucky Larry, eh.

[Malcolm Pryce]

Anthony Marsh wrote:

Yes, the professional debunkers lie when they say that "pull it" does not mean controlled demolition. I have been pointing out a PBS special about the science of controlled demolitions where one of the experts explains how they "pull" a building.
But that does not give the 9/11 Truthers the right to lie about what Silverstein said. Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained and realized it was better to just write it off as a loss and demolish it. That is a business decision, not conspiracy.
No one decided to pull building 6 before 9/11, but they eventually did.


This won't wash. If the building was demolished by CD it had to have been wired up before 9/11. Therefore it was conspiracy not a business decision. There is no way round it.

These are Larry Silverstein's actual words in the PBS documentary in 2002:

'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.'

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm afraid this story is less of a 'bombshell' than it appears at first sight. The problem is, even though the evidence that Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition is now overwhelming, this story can't possibly be true. I mean, does anyone seriously believe that if Larry Silverstein had secretly wired the building for a controlled demolition he would ring up the insurance company on the morning and let them know? If asked about it, he will just say the idea is absurd. The same applies to his now infamous 'pull it' comment when he is alleged to have discussed with the fire chief the need for a demolition. Since when do building owners have conversations like that with fire chiefs as the building burns? My own view is, the plan was for a third plane to hit Building 7 and it was wired like WTC 1 & 2 accordingly. I'm sure Larry Silverstein was in on it. But I can't believe he would have put his head in the noose by blabbing about it on the morning of 9/11.

They do it all the time. They assess the situation and then declare the building NWS, not worth saving. That allows it to be demolished for safety reasons.

[Anthony Marsh]

Anthony Marsh wrote:

Yes, the professional debunkers lie when they say that "pull it" does not mean controlled demolition. I have been pointing out a PBS special about the science of controlled demolitions where one of the experts explains how they "pull" a building.
But that does not give the 9/11 Truthers the right to lie about what Silverstein said. Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained and realized it was better to just write it off as a loss and demolish it. That is a business decision, not conspiracy.
No one decided to pull building 6 before 9/11, but they eventually did.


This won't wash. If the building was demolished by CD it had to have been wired up before 9/11. Therefore it was conspiracy not a business decision. There is no way round it.

These are Larry Silverstein's actual words in the PBS documentary in 2002:

'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.'

You are begging the question. You are ASSUMING it was a controlled demolition and therefore conspiracy by Silverstein.

And you are putting your own spin on what Silverstein said to puff up your conspiracy theory.
Just the way some kooks bring up a rumor that all the Jews were told not to go into work that morning. Or what about all those diamonds? 20 tons of diamonds missing. Diamonds are the hardest material on Earth and yet no diamonds were found in the rubble. Maybe the conspirators took at the diamonds out the day before and blew up the towers to cover their crime. Like the movie Die Hard. Yeah, that's it. And anyone who doesn't believe that version is just part of the cover-up.

[Mark Stapleton]

This won't wash. If the building was demolished by CD it had to have been wired up before 9/11. Therefore it was conspiracy not a business decision. There is no way round it.

100% correct.

[Malcolm Pryce]

Anthony Marsh wrote:

'You are begging the question. You are ASSUMING it was a controlled demolition and therefore conspiracy by Silverstein'

Huh?

You just told me it was a controlled demolition, you said 'Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained…'

(For what it is worth, there was no survey made of the building later in the day, the whole area was in general turmoil, and cordoned off.)

Anthony Marsh also wrote:

'They do it all the time. They assess the situation and then declare the building NWS, not worth saving. That allows it to be demolished for safety reasons.'

Really? I challenge you to provide a single example in the entire history of the world where a building got damaged by an unforeseen catastrophe and they demolished it the same day because by some remarkable act of precognition it had been prewired for a controlled demolition.

Honestly mate, if you agree it was a controlled demolition you are on the side of the Troofers. The whole point about the original article by the Fox News journalist is, he forgot the script and inadvertently admitted to the controlled demolition thesis rather than pour scorn on it.

[Adrian Mack]

The whole point about the original article by the Fox News journalist is, he forgot the script and inadvertently admitted to the controlled demolition thesis rather than pour scorn on it.

I don't think Fox ever forgets the script. If anything, I'm more inclined to think this was dangled to lather up the CDrs. Cue Alex Jones with yet another "huge smoking gun" that goes precisely nowhere. It's misdirection. CD is a dead end.

[Mark Stapleton]

For a dead end, it has a lot of followers.