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 documenatary 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

title: Owner's Admission?

author: Jim Hoffman

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.

site: 911Research.wtc7.net page: 911Research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

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

title: 'Pulling' Building 7

author: Jim Hoffman

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 illlegality 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.

site: wtc7.net page: wtc7.net/pullit.html

page last modified: 2007-02-18

Video of Silverstein from American Rebuilds has been reproduced hundreds of times across the Web.

Was Silverstein admitting that he conspired to demolish Building 7, or was he pulling our tail?