"On 9/11, by his own admission, Larry Silverstein ordered the demolition of his building. In February of 2002, his company won a settlement of $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers. Do the math. No one investigated. This is a confession to the demolition of Building 7. Let me repeat that, THIS IS A CONFESSION! Checkmate."
-----------------------------------------------
This claim is utterly without merit. It degrades the credibility of most of the "truth" movement. Silverstein's comment does not mean what is claimed, and this amounts to a lie. "Truthers" refuse to reexamine their claims even after it is explained in the most minute detail.
You have to step back, and take in the possibility that you are wrong on
this one. Further, that putting this claim out there is fundamentally
damaging to credibility. Silverstein admitted no such thing. His quote
does not confirm demoltion.
He wasn't even talking about the building at all, but about the
firefighting relief effort ("pull" the firefighting operation):
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,"
Are you alleging that this NY City Fire Department Commander was part of
the conspiracy? Without corroboration of any kind? Without even a name?
Without showing one piece of evidence linking the fire department to the demolition of the building? This would be laughed out of court.
"telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire,"
That's the point of the phone call! How can you make the galactic
leap from "not being able to contain the fire" to all of a sudden the NYFD is blowing up buildings!
"and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, "
"Loss of life" is the subject of this exchange. Since hundreds
of firemen were inside a burning building (owned/controlled by
Silverstein) AND they didn't think they were going to be able to
contain it, then OBVIOUSLY:
"maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'
Yes, obviously, the smartest thing was to pull the operation, get the men
out and keep them from giving their lives in defense of property.
"And they made that decision to pull,"
This is not in dispute. The firefighters indeed left the building.
" and we watched the building collapse. (PBS, 2002)"
If he's admitting to imploding and demolishing the building, then why
does he call it a "collapse?"
This 'evidence' is a bad joke. Silverstein has admitted to
nothing, and most of the 9-11 truth seekers have made themselves look like abject idiots (myself included).
This is what I have sent to Dr. Griffin, and similar messages have been
sent to all the "scholars."
What response I have gotten at all (from James Fetzer) has been to call me an FBI agent. So much for scholarly inquiry.
Re: Larry Silverstein:
-------------------------------------
"It is very puzzling, to be sure, that Silverstein, who was ready to
receive billions of dollars in insurance payments for building 7 and
the rest of the World Trade Center complex, on the assumption that they
had been destroyed by acts of terrorism, would have made such a
statement in public, especially with TV cameras running. But his
assertion that building 7 was brought down by explosives, whatever the
motive behind it, explains why and how it collapsed."
-------------------------------------
Dr. Griffin,
The Silverstein quote "pull it" has been widely misinterpreted.
This can potentially damage credibility.
The evidence does not suggest that
Silverstein is referring to controlled demolition, but to the firefighting relief effort ('pull' the men out...)
-------------------------------------
"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.'[76] And they made that decision to
pull, and we watched the building collapse. (PBS, 2002) [77]
-------------------------------------
Silverstein is referring to the "they" that precedes the "pull" statement, NOT to the "collapse" that comes later.
There is no reason to assume that Silverstein -- an investor and
landlord -- would be bandying
about industry jargon such as "pull" to
refer to a building demolition. Nothing suggests that he would understand that term in that context.
Certainly, he had no motive to say such a thing during an interview.
Therefore, the most logical explanation is the simple misunderstanding
on the part of overzealous 9-11 researchers.
"Pull it," refers to pulling out the fire crews from Building 7. Simple.
Whether Silverstein had additional information that the building was
wired for demolition is another story. He may have known of the
impending demoltion, and therefore wanted to spare the fire crews from certain death. This is a definite possibility.
The "pull it" quote, however, is not evidence of controlled demolition, merely of Silverstein's position as an authority figure with the ability to order fire crews in and out of buildings.
------------------------------------
I will follow up later with other examples of misinformation that collectively are destroying the credibility of the movement.
I consider this a lynch pin topic, and write about it in many contexts. Giving the opposition ammo to use against you isn't smart.
Latest articles:
9/11: Pathetic "Left" Disinformation
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/20 ... ation.html
"The ravings of Alexander Cockburn / CounterPunch (among others) and the Limits of Permissable Discourse Concerning 9/11"
9/11: Ignorance is Strength?
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/20 ... ength.html
Response to Paul Campos, Commondreams.org and Rocky Mountain News.
